Hello, everyone.
I have another question about pronunciation; rather, more than a question, a poll. I would like to know how each of you pronounces final -m: amicum, bellum, puellam, etc. I have read in many sources (and also because of the Romance languages) that it was probably pronounced as a velar nasal, i.e. NG in English "sing".Would this be a pronunciation applied to poetry only or used in general? Would this pronunciation apply to -m in syllable-final position, i.e. ambulo? I also am aware of how in poetry, it tends to be dropped along with its preceding vowel. Now, I would like to know your pronunciation preferences for this case and why. We'll take the following words as examples:
amicum, ambulo, virumque, omnis
While we're talking about velar nasals, how do you all pronounce GN, as in magnum? Indeed as a velar nasal, or a velar nasal by an N, or more like Italian GN, or even g + n?
I myself pronounce -m as [m], though when I get further in Latin studies, I will probably pronounce it as a velar nasal, especially in poetry, depending on what I believe is most proper. I pronounce GN as a velar nasal at the moment.
Again, this is mostly to know what pronunciation is used in practice by each one.
How do you pronounce -m and gn?
-
FiliusLunae
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 11:22 pm
- Location: California, USA
-
adz000
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 9:45 pm
- Location: Cantabrigiae Massachusettensium
Hi,
Just my preferences here, which I'm not basing in any firm historical reality. I've never heard anyone try the nasalized final -m and I just can't get it to sound right on my own. Presumably, however, the -m would be pronounced this way not just in poetry but in all forms of the language.
Sidney Allen gives very good arguments why we shouldn't be afraid to elide syllables in reading Latin verse; he shows that comprehension really isn't hampered by losing case-endings. This was how I was taught to read: don't pronounce the elided vowel at all. But I'm starting to like the sound of leaving elided vowels in there and pronouncing them a bit faster. Italian verse often does this. In my opinion poetry sounds better when it feels a bit more like uttered language, rather than a counting game where you jam syllables together.
Now that I've given an argument for anachronism, I'm going to switch and give a few instances of things where I prefer ancient pronunciation.
Compounds of iacio do not lose the [y] sound, even though they lose the letter. E.g. I like adicio being read adjicio. Pronouncing it "add-icky-oh" sounds a bit too bookish.
Also, assimilation of consonants when certain prefixes are attached. Orthography really varies on this point both in modern editions and in the manuscripts, but I have no doubt that whether it was written adsequi or assequi it was read aloud as assequi.
Lastly 'b' followed by a voiceless consonant loses its voicing. e.g. pronounce urbs as urps (but note urbis); the same with obtinuit = optinuit.
These are all points that grammarians raise (like Quintilian, I.7) in order to correct pronunciation and I like them because they're more instances where Latin is just like all other languages (though none is so bad as English) that have irregularities in living pronunciation which aren't mirrored in orthography. They're ways in which Latin becomes a bit more human and less like a machine. Of course if you look at them from the other direction, they're just worthless bits of pedantry. Eh.
Just my preferences here, which I'm not basing in any firm historical reality. I've never heard anyone try the nasalized final -m and I just can't get it to sound right on my own. Presumably, however, the -m would be pronounced this way not just in poetry but in all forms of the language.
Sidney Allen gives very good arguments why we shouldn't be afraid to elide syllables in reading Latin verse; he shows that comprehension really isn't hampered by losing case-endings. This was how I was taught to read: don't pronounce the elided vowel at all. But I'm starting to like the sound of leaving elided vowels in there and pronouncing them a bit faster. Italian verse often does this. In my opinion poetry sounds better when it feels a bit more like uttered language, rather than a counting game where you jam syllables together.
Now that I've given an argument for anachronism, I'm going to switch and give a few instances of things where I prefer ancient pronunciation.
Compounds of iacio do not lose the [y] sound, even though they lose the letter. E.g. I like adicio being read adjicio. Pronouncing it "add-icky-oh" sounds a bit too bookish.
Also, assimilation of consonants when certain prefixes are attached. Orthography really varies on this point both in modern editions and in the manuscripts, but I have no doubt that whether it was written adsequi or assequi it was read aloud as assequi.
Lastly 'b' followed by a voiceless consonant loses its voicing. e.g. pronounce urbs as urps (but note urbis); the same with obtinuit = optinuit.
These are all points that grammarians raise (like Quintilian, I.7) in order to correct pronunciation and I like them because they're more instances where Latin is just like all other languages (though none is so bad as English) that have irregularities in living pronunciation which aren't mirrored in orthography. They're ways in which Latin becomes a bit more human and less like a machine. Of course if you look at them from the other direction, they're just worthless bits of pedantry. Eh.
-
Mulciber
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:38 pm
- Location: England
Since Latin verse is of a sort that depends on the counting of long and short syllables, and, unlike English verse, takes no account of whether syllables are stressed or unstressed, I am forced to question whether any human being who is listening to a recital in dactylic hexameter can even tell that he is listening to dactylic hexameter. I confess, I certainly can't. Could anybody here say that they can? For this reason, so far in my Latin studies I've paid scant attention to this whole business of elision. Is there something wrong with me?
-
FiliusLunae
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 11:22 pm
- Location: California, USA
Thank you both for answering.
The site I have praised for a good pronunciation actually does just this with -m (i.e. rendered as a velar nasal).
And poetry, I haven't begun reading it yet, except for a few not-so complex ones. I've wondered myself about elision. At first, it seemed odd. Then, I "accepted" it via the Romance languages.
Well, I wanted to know what you guys were doing as far these pronunciations to try to see which one is the one used most by you, and then, attempt to follow along the lines.
The site I have praised for a good pronunciation actually does just this with -m (i.e. rendered as a velar nasal).
And poetry, I haven't begun reading it yet, except for a few not-so complex ones. I've wondered myself about elision. At first, it seemed odd. Then, I "accepted" it via the Romance languages.
Well, I wanted to know what you guys were doing as far these pronunciations to try to see which one is the one used most by you, and then, attempt to follow along the lines.