Pronunciation and Spelling of u as a consonant

[forevergreen]

I'm using Reading Latin by Jones and Sidwell (Cambridge) - preparing to undertake a first degree.
This book insists on using 'u' as a consonant rather than 'v'. From what I've read this seems to be a bit of a zealots approach and is a little confusing - sometimes deciding which is consinant and which is vowel isn't easy.
Example, the opening chapters of the text (based around Pautus' Aulularia) uses the title word (which means 'pot of gold). OK this is based on aurum - gold and the 'u' is a vowel. Later we are told - Euclio senex auarus est (Euclio is a greedy old man?).
Now, how should I know (from an aspect of total ignorance) that the first 'u' in Aulularia is pronounced as 'u' and the 'u' in auarus is a v (pronounced w).
It would seem a lot easier for reading (and Latin is, after all, a reading language) to spell it as avarus - no confusion.
What do other people think? Are the authors of this book being a little over precise?
:?:

[Lucus Eques]

Well, just to harp on my old lyre, Latin is not a language exclusively for reading silently, for the Romans wrote their literature when their language was quite alive, and it is impossible to appreciate or even understand the literature of Latin without speaking and pronouncing the language correctly.

That said, I commend Jones and Sidwell for the elimination of the 'v', and replacing it with its proper 'u'. It took me a long time to get over it, but ultimately I was convinced by some of the masters here at Textkit that such a course makes the most sense, for the Romans possesses no letter 'v', nor did they write a letter by the shape 'V' except monumentally — Roman handwriting possessed 'u's with a distinct curve, and often a little tail, like this very letter 'u'. In any case, in ancient Rome, both the shapes 'u' and 'v' correspond to the same letter, and therefore all occurrences of that letter in our modern printings should be unified, that is, all be either 'u' or 'v' — and given the alternative, 'u' is clearly the optimum choice.

The convention of writing 'j' for consonantal 'i' and 'v' for consonantal 'u' became popular a few hundred years ago, and was a means of connecting the Latin language with its modern descendents through orthography. This trend, however, has fallen out of favor, and just as the 'j' has no place in classical Latin, nor should any 'v', in my opinion. (To the credit of the 'v', however, I do like its authoritative shape, and so for the purposes of aesthetics I like to spell my capital 'u's with the letter 'V' — even if the capital 'u' is not consonantal; for instance, I would spell the word "ubi," when beginning a sentence, as "Vbi.")

As for the apparent difficulty of pronunciation with reading a word like "auārus," I believe you may be concentrating too hard on the especial rigors of English pronunciation. Try not to think of consonantal 'u' so much as a consonant, but merely as a short vowel. In "auārus," the first two vowels, 'a' and 'u', are especially short, shorter than medium length; so if you pronounce them both together as one syllable, you get the diphthong 'au,' as in "laudāre." Pronouncing this 'au' followed by the '-ārus," if spoken correctly and fluidly, will be virtually identical if you thought of that first 'u' as a 'w', especially since the following 'ā' is quite long, and coupled with the preceeding diphthong 'au' offers a little bit of that natural 'w' sound without any effort. Indeed, one should avoid thinking of the consonantal 'u' as something different from a regular 'u', but instead merely a shorter version of regular vowel. I find this effects the most authoritative pronunciation.

By the way, welcome to TextKit!

[benissimus]

I'm using Reading Latin by Jones and Sidwell (Cambridge) - preparing to undertake a first degree.
This book insists on using 'u' as a consonant rather than 'v'. From what I've read this seems to be a bit of a zealots approach and is a little confusing -

While it is outside the norm, it has been gaining popularity in official publications for a couple decades at least. Also, most of us here at Textkit have been converted to this system, though we must make exceptions to be understood by those who aren't used to it at times.

sometimes deciding which is consinant and which is vowel isn't easy.
Example, the opening chapters of the text (based around Pautus' Aulularia) uses the title word (which means 'pot of gold). OK this is based on aurum - gold and the 'u' is a vowel. Later we are told - Euclio senex auarus est (Euclio is a greedy old man?).
Now, how should I know (from an aspect of total ignorance) that the first 'u' in Aulularia is pronounced as 'u' and the 'u' in auarus is a v (pronounced w).

First let me establish some rules that pertain to Latin in general but that come alive in this writing style (if you write with 'v', the first two rules are realized only as spelling patterns):

1) Semivowels usually function as consonants at the beginning of a word or between two vowels. The series qu and su are exceptions to this rule.
2) Conversely, semivowels must function as vowels at the end of a word or before a consonant.

There are three possibilities, from the point of total ignorance (assuming at least the rules of syllabification), for pronouncing auarus:
a-u-a-rus (which breaks rule 1), au-a-rus (breaks rule 1), and a-ua-rus.

Books that choose to do away with 'v' need to realize that it causes problems to develop that did not occur before in pronunciation and word identification and they should offer rules like those above to explain; it seems to me an unnecessarily harsh environment for beginners if they do not clear such a big issue at the very beginning.

It would seem a lot easier for reading (and Latin is, after all, a reading language) to spell it as avarus - no confusion.
What do other people think? Are the authors of this book being a little over precise?

It would also be a lot easier to pronounce English (from a point of total ignorance) phonetically, but we do not out of custom and out of preservation for our linguistic heritage. It would also be inconsistent to do away with Latin J but keep the V (the style which bothers me more than any other).

[Lucus Eques]

There are three possibilities, from the point of total ignorance (assuming at least the rules of syllabification), for pronouncing auarus:
a-u-a-rus (which breaks rule 1), au-a-rus (breaks rule 3), and a-ua-rus.

But au-a-rus doesn't break rule three. "Latin diphthongs are formed from two vowels of equal length," and the first two vowels of "auārus" are short (as opposed to being of medium length or long). Moreover, those very helpful rules for English speakers aside, I maintain that au-a-rus and a-ua-rus, when pronounced correctly and without unnatural emphasis, sound exactly the same.

[benissimus]

But au-a-rus doesn't break rule three. "Latin diphthongs are formed from two vowels of equal length," and the first two vowels of "auārus" are short (as opposed to being of medium length or long).

You are quite right, I have changed it around a little. For some reason I was thinking of the first 'a' as long, even though I know it isn't. It is still true that Latin usually doesn't just have two vowels or diphthongs in succession as would be the case in au-a-rus, not if there is any way to avoid it, so maybe another rule is needed.

Moreover, those very helpful rules for English speakers aside, I maintain that au-a-rus and a-ua-rus, when pronounced correctly and without unnatural emphasis, sound exactly the same.

I agree with you there, but I think it takes some conditioning for this to be of any use, since most people do not use pronunciation as a tool in learning Latin. I still hold that it is the responsibility of the textbook to clear these things up, this is just as important an issue to explain as vowel length if you do away with 'v'. To create new complications for the sake of authenticity is one thing, but to not explain the implications to the students is somewhat reckless.

[Lucus Eques]

I agree with you there, but I think it takes some conditioning for this to be of any use, since most people do not use pronunciation as a tool in learning Latin. I still hold that it is the responsibility of the textbook to clear these things up, this is just as important an issue to explain as vowel length if you do away with 'v'. To create new complications for the sake of authenticity is one thing, but to not explain the implications to the students is somewhat reckless.

I agree completely.

[forevergreen]

Thanks, both, very much for the helpful advice - I think I'm now getting my head round it but with everything else there is to learn...
I'm certainly plugging some holes in my English grammar - which I thought was quite good.
Thanks again for your help and good wishes.