Textkit Logo

-um

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

Postby adrianus » Tue May 20, 2008 7:34 pm

Oops. Me paenitet.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Lucus Eques » Tue May 20, 2008 8:05 pm

adrianus wrote:I thought you got my sense of humour and mischief or kidding.


And I thought you got mine! Damn this infernal cage of lifeless letters! within which my soul's pulse is hidden away. :)

All's good, friend, pardon my tongue-in-cheek accusations and poor taste. I wish we could debate these matters vocally — would you like to try Skype some time? I think a lot is getting lost it transcription.


As to what I've said in previous debates — let's just say I've grown. :) If I said Nuntii Latini's convention was "in error," then what I will say now is I find their convention annoying :) and un-Classical. It's all opinion anyway, based on a variety of evidence, historical and otherwise. But matters of opinion are not all trivial — opinions on war, for example, or justice.





And by the way, your speech's proximity probably still is closest to Shakespeare among the dialects. ;)
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby adrianus » Tue May 20, 2008 10:54 pm

Lucus wrote:As to what I've said in previous debates — let's just say I've grown. :) If I said Nuntii Latini's convention was "in error," then what I will say now is I find their convention annoying :) and un-Classical. It's all opinion anyway, based on a variety of evidence, historical and otherwise. But matters of opinion are not all trivial — opinions on war, for example, or justice.

This is definitely a new Luke (apart from the 'if', mind you). However, I liked the old one and, because I agree totally* with your statement, I have to wonder if that will make for good debate. I hope so, because one can grow by slugging it out. (What doesn't kill you makes you stronger?)

Certè, novus Lucus es ("si" conjunctio divisim, nota). Anteriore autem frui et, cum verbis tuis consentiens, me rogo utrum controversiam meliorem futuram esse. Ita spero, quòd pugnando nos crescere permittamini. ('Quod non ruit, munit', dicamus?)
Lucus wrote:Skype some time? I think a lot is getting lost it transcription.

Surely. That would be good. However, the advantage of debating textually about early writings on language is that the practice itself sensitizes one to the problems of expression in these areas, and should encourage a sympathetic attitude towards the sources. You have to think beyond what is written to what is meant by their authors. If you reread, in the context of our debate, Cicero's comments in De Oratione (Book I, §24) about the foolishness of talking about language, I suspect you will laugh.

Volo. Bonum sit. Si verùm dicam, autem, in scribendo credibile est ut fiamus sensibiliores et affabiliores ad scribendi difficultates de loquendo apud antiquos. Ultrà quod scriptum est, debes sedulò intueri quoque quae res cogitatae sunt. Ut relegas, amabò, apud Ciceronis opus nomine De Oratione (in libro primo, parte vicesimâ quartâ) circà stultitiam quorum de loquellâ expandunt, quod te faciet ridere, ut suspicor, cum controversiam nostram videbis.

[*I edited this to correct this by underlining that I still believe the Nuntii broadcasters speak beautifully and their pronunciation is a great model for clarity in public speaking.]
Last edited by adrianus on Mon May 26, 2008 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Lucus Eques » Tue May 20, 2008 11:27 pm

adrianus wrote:
Lucus wrote:As to what I've said in previous debates — let's just say I've grown. :) If I said Nuntii Latini's convention was "in error," then what I will say now is I find their convention annoying :) and un-Classical. It's all opinion anyway, based on a variety of evidence, historical and otherwise. But matters of opinion are not all trivial — opinions on war, for example, or justice.

This is definitely a new Luke (apart from the 'if', mind you). However, I liked the old one and, because I agree totally with your statement, I have to wonder if that will make for good debate. I hope so, because one can grow by slugging it out. (What doesn't kill you makes you stronger?)


Spoken like a true Irishman! :D Being of Irish descent myself, I appreciate the notion.
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby Amadeus » Wed May 21, 2008 12:18 am

Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Lucus Eques » Wed May 21, 2008 1:11 am

Amadeus, this is a fabulous synthesis, and is much appreciated! since we badly need to get back on track with this discussion.


Amadeus wrote:[But you do concede that elision all the time can lead to confusion and is not preferred in careful enunciation?]


I do not. Allen actually notes (in those lovely passages from Vox Latina pp. 78-82 Adrian had me read ;) ) that in the hundreds of elisions/contractions in Vergil, for example, only two are ambiguous, and neither change the meaning of the line. I'm not sure of the state of elision/contraction in Mexican Spanish, but in Italian it is frequent, and necessary unless you want to sound like a barbarian, and I never found myself confused. The only challenge, at first, was recognising individual words, since they seemed to flow so cleanly together; but once I became fluent, this became a non-issue.

Other evidence: older, preclassical inscriptions, in which no final '-m's are written (meaning that there was never a "loss" of a closed final '-m' — it never exsisted in the first place).


P.S.: By the way, Luce, I did spot an apparent contradiction when you tried to deal with myotacism. You call Pompeius' solution against myotacism a hypercorrection and unlatin. But isn't myotacism a Barbarism and un-Latin? If so, then how is it a hypercorrection to avoid it?


I see your confusion. I think this may come from my original misunderstanding of the passage, and my present lack of clarity on what Pompeius really means, since it is not clear. It seems, anyway, that he was advocating it as 'preferable' — advocation of the pronunciation of final -m closed rather than a nasalized vowel (or no difference from a pure vowel) is hypercorrective, since it demonstrates fundamental misunderstanding of what that letter means phonetically (i.e. nasalization of the preceding vowel).
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby Lucus Eques » Wed May 21, 2008 10:23 am

Ah! I just remembered something:

Final '-n' in Japanese is quite similar to the final '-m' of Latin, and is written ん in hiragana, ン in katakana.

Here's a little on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ã‚“
(The forum's URL reading technology doesn't seem to like the hiragana in the address; search for "N kana" in wiki to find the page.)

***
[Å‹] (before /k/, /É¡/ or /m/)
[m] (before /b/ or /p/)
[n] (before /d/, /n/, or /t/)
[Å©] (between /a/ and /o/ or before /s/)
[Ä©] (between /i/ and /o/)
[É´] (at the end of an utterance)
***

It even makes the final syllable long! with two morae!

Does Japanese do elision/contration? I only had a year of the language, not enough for such details, I fear, but enough to recall the striking resemblance to Latin phonology!

The [N] seems to be a fascinating sound:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvular_nasal

So between vowels it is merely a nasalized version of the preceding vowel, but sandhi occurs just as in Latin before consonants.
Could we have found a plausible hodiern candidate that could teach us about Classical Latin '-m'?
I believe we have.
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby adrianus » Wed May 21, 2008 11:58 am

Salve Amadee,
Amadeus wrote:You guys, Adriane and Luce, really know how to confound the issue. It would've been much simpler without exchanges like "you assume", "No, you assume that I assume", etc.

You assume it would have been! :D For me it's more fun because I have to translate into Latin everything I say in my additional one-player game. (Sadly, it's one player because no ones has time to correct my errors and I wish they would. No-one has tried my 'divitiae' enigma in the other thread, either, and that makes me feel silly! Please someone do! :cry: )

Opinaris graciliùs! :D Meâ parte, quod mihi oportet omnia in Latino vertere regulis ludi mei quem solus ludo, illae deflectiones cum maximè placent, (Tristis sum ut solus ludo et nemo emendando peccatorum meorum grammaticorum tempus dat. Aliter velim. Nemo etiam qui aenigmam meam de divitiis in filo alio conatus est. Quod me ineptum habere facit! Amabò vos, conemini. :cry: )

I'll respond to your post properly later.
Tuae epistolae continuò meliùs redibo.

Ave, amice.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby adrianus » Wed May 21, 2008 6:22 pm

Lucus wrote:in the hundreds of elisions/contractions in Vergil, for example, only two are ambiguous, and neither change the meaning of the line

It is to the credit of Vergil's art that he only admits elision where there is negligible possibility of misunderstanding. Elision and Hiatus were discussed in Greece as far back as the 5th century BCE, beginning with Isocrates. To say there was no issue about elision and clarity of speech because elisions will almost always be clear to native speakers is a bit dismissive of the historical debate.
Ad gloriam artis Virgilii est ut elisionem non permittit ubi minima sinistra rei interpretatio sit. Tam diù quam Isocrate saeculo quinto ante aevum communem, hiatus elisioque disputabantur. Quod dicas de elisionis usu et comprehensione automaticâ quorum indigenè linguam loquuntur, id contentionem historicam potiùs curtè amandat.

Lucus wrote:Other evidence: older, preclassical inscriptions, in which no final '-m's are written (meaning that there was never a "loss" of a closed final '-m' — it never exsisted in the first place).

I know you could critique this yourself and present strong counter arguments, Luke, if you were inclined.
Te ipse, Luce, rem analyzare possis, ut scio, et argumentationes persuasibiles adversùm praebere, si propensus sit.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby adrianus » Wed May 21, 2008 6:29 pm

Salve Amadee

You didn't mention Diomedes and Consentius, who provide evidence for the terminal-M sound, and Velius Longus, who provides evidence against. Longus provides strong evidence for the lack of M and for a nasalized-vowel. Note Longus mentions the grammarian Marcus Verrius Flaccus, tutor to Augustus's grandsons. His De Orthographia is lost but De Verborum Significatu survives in an abridgement by Festus (itself partial) in the first century CE. Festus paraphrases Flaccus as saying (§50), "Quite a few believed synaloepha (elision) also was involved in such writing [*], as did Verrius Flaccus; that wherever a word finished with the letter M and the next began with a vowel, that not a whole M but only the first part should be written in order to indicate that it should not be pronounced." As you see, Velius Longus repeats this verbatim.

Diomedis Consentiique mentionem omittis. Argumenta brevia M soni dant. Velii Longi verba adnuunt ut M littera in fine dictionis non sonitur. Ut ostendit haec citatio, verbatim mutatus est Velius a Festo ubi Verrii Flacci sententias dat: "Nonnulli synaloephas quoque observandas circa talem scriptionem existimaverunt, sicut Verrius Flaccus; ut ubicumque prima vox M littera finiretur, sequens a vocali inciperet, M non tota, sed pars illius prior tantum scriberetur, ut appareret exprimi non debere." Magister erat Flaccus grammaticus nepotibus imperatori augusti.

Quintilian gives further evidence for the sound of word-ending M being made with the mouth-closed:

Institutions of Oratory, Book 12, Ch.10, §31, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... D*.html#10 , wrote:Again, we have a number of words which end with M, a letter which suggests the mooing of a cow, and is never the final letter in any Greek word: for in its place they use the letters ny, the sound of which is naturally pleasant and produces a ringing tone when it occurs at the end of a word, whereas in Latin this termination is scarcely ever found.

Quintiliano hoc testimonium M litterae terminantis dat, quod sonum verum ore clauso sonari ostendit:
Institutiones, libro duodecimr, capitulo tricesimo primo, http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/quintili ... 2.shtml#10 , wrote:Quid quod pleraque nos illa quasi mugiente littera cludimus, in quam nullum Graece verbum cadit? At illi ny iucundam et in fine praecipue quasi tinnientem illius loco ponunt, quae est apud nos rarissima in clausulis.


Also, you have two more bits for the sound of final-M. Martianus's tongue-twister is especially nice.
Martianus Capella (5th century) in Halm, Rhetores Latini Minores, p.474 wrote:Mytacism is when a problem is caused in the junction of two vowels by the presence of an M, as when you say 'mammam ipsam amo quasi meam animam'.

Isadore of Seville (560? — 636 CE), Etymologies, Bk II, §29, wrote:Also to be avoided is M between two vowels, as in 'verum enim'

Etiam, haec duo testimonia sonandi M terminantis. Praecipuè dictum bonum Martiani nota, qui linguam torquet:
Martianus Capella (quinto saeculo) in Halm, Rhetores Latini Minores, p.474, wrote:Mytacismus est cum verborum coniunctio M litterae assiduitate colliditur ut si dicas 'mammam ipsam amo quasi meam animam'.

Isadorus (560? — 636), Etymologia, libro secundo, parte undetricesimo, wrote:Fugienda est et consonans M inlisa vocalibus, ut 'verum enim'
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Lucus Eques » Wed May 21, 2008 7:22 pm

User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby Amadeus » Thu May 22, 2008 2:32 am

This is great evidence, Adriane! I shall have to go over it more slowly, but later. I've been very busy with work and Greek and Rhetoric, and there's just not enough time. :P

Vale!
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby adrianus » Thu May 22, 2008 1:54 pm

Lucus wrote:So, you've done you're part, good job.

Thanks, Luke. I don't know better than you, but I think that we all could know better than we think we ourselves know! :wink:

Gratias tibi, Luci (quia 'Lucius' scribis, et non 'Lucus'). Meliùs quàm te non scio, at nos omnes meliùs scrire possumus quàm quod nos ipsos scire putamus, ut opinor! :wink:

Lucus wrote:ancient authors with regard to the description of this sound. They don't all seem to agree, signifying changes thru time.

You're right, and yet...
Consider the nature of documentary evidence and the nature of the world and the contexts in which we apply that evidence. In geometry, two single points provide evidence with certainty only for a straight line, but they are still evidence for an infinity variety of other shapes, known only with uncertainty. What I've been poking at is 'certainty', because when one believes in it, one stops looking hard at things and imagines everything as evidence for one's views. And because dominant groups influence the historical availability of documentary and artifactual evidence, what may appear evidence of change in time may be the result of power shifts between groups with different accent tendencies coexisting in time. That's my thesis,-- which, no doubt, is only partly true, if at all.

Rectè dicis, atqui...
Naturam testimonii documentarii cogites, coque mundi contextuumque in quibus acquiruntur. Cum geometriâ, duobus punctis sepositis linea recta solùm scitur ut compertum; incertè autem haec puncta aliarum numerum infinitum figurarum indicant. Certa rei ratio est quam pungebam, quoniam in eâ credendo alia intensè quaerere desines, et omnia vides testimonia rerum quas opinaris. Ultrà, gregibus dominantibus quae testimonia documentalia artefactorumque maneant afficientibus, aliquod argumentum ad tempore mutandum pertinentem videatur, potiùs sit ad effectum mutatione auctoritatis emanentem inter populos, qui accentos varios sed circuminsessiones habeant. Ecce thesis mea,--quae, sinè dubito, parùm vera est, si ullo modo vera.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Amadeus » Thu May 22, 2008 6:22 pm

Last edited by Amadeus on Thu May 22, 2008 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby adrianus » Thu May 22, 2008 6:47 pm

LUCUS wrote:Remember the various classes of Latin consonants: /velars: C, G /dentals: T, D /- glide: L, R /sibilant: S /fricative: F /labial: P, B /- glide: V
Let's use the preposition "cum" because it can come in front of anything. /
We write: cum curru /But really these sound as one "joined" word: cuncurru [that 'n' is the velar nasal, the same at the end of the word "sing"]
Equally, we write: cum Gallo /But we sound: cungallo
...We write: cum Tito /But we sound: cuntito [here the 'n' is the dental nasal]
We write: cum dentibus /But we sound: cundentibus
We write: cum patre /But we sound: cumpatre [the 'm' is full and true, or at least more so]
It's likely that, even in these sandhis, some element of the natural nasal-vowel quality of the -m remains, even though it's not "left hanging," so to speak, as it would be at the end of a sentence, conforming naturally to the consonant that follows. Hence "tan durum." ...
Final '-n' in Japanese is quite similar to the final '-m' of Latin, and is written ん in hiragana, ン in katakana. ...
[Å‹] (before /k/, /É¡/ or /m/)
[m] (before /b/ or /p/)
[n] (before /d/, /n/, or /t/)
[Å©] (between /a/ and /o/ or before /s/)
[Ä©] (between /i/ and /o/)
[É´] (at the end of an utterance)

This is what I think, for what it's worth in all its naivety.

N and M are similar because of their nasal qualities. What distinguishes them is that M uses the lips to end or begin, and N uses the tongue. And if you close your lips also at the end of the N sound it acquires a hybrid M sound (same with M and tongue).
What you have written above assumes M is pronounced N in Latin, except before letters P and B. That's why you believe it similar to Japanese ã‚“, which sounds like N, except before P and B when it sounds like M (and otherwise like different sounds also in some other places).

Now note that the labials P and B involve closed lips. When you speak in an accelerated but natural way, N before P or B sounds like an M because the lips close at the end of the N sound. This applies in Japanese, Latin, everywhere. Go to the OED and look for words beginning ANP- and you will find that all words once so spelt and pronounced have become AMP- in English. There is only one English ANB- word 'anbury' and, with it, 'ambury' is noted as a phonetic variant and valid spelling.

Now in Latin, Quintilian talks about the terminal M sound as a 'mooing' sound and distinct from the ringing sound of a Greek terminal N (?'that 'n' is the velar nasal, the same at the end of the word 'sing'", as you say?). Flaccus talks about dropping the M sound altogether. and elsewhere you can point to evidence of and N sound for an M, indeed. All are possible practices, so which happened in fact? Could not all have coexisted as dialect variants?

It requires less muscular effort and care, and different muscles, to articulate a word-terminal N sound and to keep the initial vowel of the following word clear and distinct, i.e., un-nasalized, than it does with a word-terminal M sound. The reason is that N terminates with an open mouth, --the starting position of the following vowel. The issue here is that, if the subsequent vowel is nasalized, it will sound like it belongs to the preceding consonant. Consider "-an eb-" and "-am eb-". To terminate the -N sound and prepare for a clean, un-nasalized vowel to follow on, I must terminate the nasal vibration and drop the tongue tip from the upper teeth. To terminate the -M sound and prepare for a clean, un-nasalized vowel to follow on, I must terminate the nasal vibration and open the mouth from the closed position it assumed. The difference is N tongue movement versus M lip movement. Because the tongue is more agile than the lips, it will get into position quicker for a clean vowel to follow. The lips are slower and so there is more chance that, in smooth speech, the follow-on vowel inherits part of the nasal sound,--it gets slurred with the M and sounds like it belongs to it (myotacism). I also think for these reasons that N requires less energy or effort than M to say. Where M precedes consonants that initialize from an open-lipped position (all except B and P), it will require more effort than an N would. Consequently, given the closeness between M and N, I think that economy of effort and the natural tendency of groups to distinguish themselves in language will contribute to the adoption of an N sound for M in speech in some syllable junctures in some places in some dialects. If you are lucky enough to belong to a popular or dominant group, then you might hope to persuade (or force!) others to adopt your fashion of talking.

[Since I don't know if what I'm saying makes sense in English, I won't try this in Latin.
Dum nescio an quod dico anglicè intellegitur, haec verba in latino non tentabo.

Hi Amadeus. I haven't read your post yet.
Salve Amadee. Tuam epistolam non iam legi.]
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby adrianus » Thu May 22, 2008 7:06 pm

Salve Amadee
I know for a fact that cows in Ireland say "MMMMM" nasally, without any vowels! I have never met a cow from Spain, however.
In Hiberniâ, certus sum boves "MMMMM" sinè vocalibus dicere, à naribus expressum! Nunquàm autem obviavi bovi hispanicae.

If "scriptust" for "scriptum est" is evidence for omission of an M sound, then "scriptumst" for "scriptum est" in Terence and elsewhere is evidence of inclusion of an M sound.
Si "scriptust" pro "scriptum est" non sonari ostendat, sequitur "scriptumst" pro "scriptum est" apud Terentium et alios litteram sonari quidem indicat.

Amadeus wrote:Pompeius, Consentius, Servius, and Martianus, all Late Latin grammarians speak of myotacism as the careless pronunciation of the final -m as an initial M when followed by a vowel (liaison).

You're forgetting about the evidence they provide also for the sounding of terminal M in all cases other than before a vowel.
Argumenta quae dant oblivisceris, M consonantem terminantem sonari casibus praeter eos qui ad vocales sequentes pertinent.
Last edited by adrianus on Thu May 22, 2008 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Lucus Eques » Thu May 22, 2008 7:51 pm

adrianus wrote:
LUCUS wrote:Remember the various classes of Latin consonants: /velars: C, G /dentals: T, D /- glide: L, R /sibilant: S /fricative: F /labial: P, B /- glide: V
Let's use the preposition "cum" because it can come in front of anything. /
We write: cum curru /But really these sound as one "joined" word: cuncurru [that 'n' is the velar nasal, the same at the end of the word "sing"]
Equally, we write: cum Gallo /But we sound: cungallo
...We write: cum Tito /But we sound: cuntito [here the 'n' is the dental nasal]
We write: cum dentibus /But we sound: cundentibus
We write: cum patre /But we sound: cumpatre [the 'm' is full and true, or at least more so]
It's likely that, even in these sandhis, some element of the natural nasal-vowel quality of the -m remains, even though it's not "left hanging," so to speak, as it would be at the end of a sentence, conforming naturally to the consonant that follows. Hence "tan durum." ...
Final '-n' in Japanese is quite similar to the final '-m' of Latin, and is written ん in hiragana, ン in katakana. ...
[Å‹] (before /k/, /É¡/ or /m/)
[m] (before /b/ or /p/)
[n] (before /d/, /n/, or /t/)
[Å©] (between /a/ and /o/ or before /s/)
[Ä©] (between /i/ and /o/)
[É´] (at the end of an utterance)

This is what I think, for what it's worth in all its naivety.

N and M are similar because of their nasal qualities. What distinguishes them is that M uses the lips to end or begin, and N uses the tongue. And if you close your lips also at the end of the N sound it acquires a hybrid M sound (same with M and tongue).
What you have written above assumes M is pronounced N in Latin, except before letters P and B.


No. What I assume is that Latin final '-m' is virtually the same sound as Japanese ã‚“. Two ways of writing the same sound (i.e. a nasalization of the preceding vowel). That Roman-letter translitteration marks it as '-n', is immaterial.

That's why you believe it similar to Japanese ã‚“, which sounds like N,


Except that it doesn't sound like 'n'.

Now note that the labials P and B involve closed lips. When you speak in an accelerated but natural way, N before P or B sounds like an M because the lips close at the end of the N sound. This applies in Japanese, Latin, everywhere. Go to the OED and look for words beginning ANP- and you will find that all words once so spelt and pronounced have become AMP- in English. There is only one English ANB- word 'anbury' and, with it, 'ambury' is noted as a phonetic variant and valid spelling.


Assimilation, sandhi, right, we've been over that, yes.

Now in Latin, Quintilian talks about the terminal M sound as a 'mooing' sound and distinct from the ringing sound of a Greek terminal N (?'that 'n' is the velar nasal, the same at the end of the word 'sing'", as you say?).


Hwhat? The final '-n' in Greek is identical to English final '-n', IPA /n/, except where sandhi/assimilation applies. Actually the velar nasal is represented in Greek by the first of two gammas, e.g. ἀγγελος.

It requires less muscular effort and care, and different muscles, to articulate a word-terminal N sound and to keep the initial vowel of the following word clear and distinct, i.e., un-nasalized, than it does with a word-terminal M sound.


That's totally subjective. You could say also that Italians strain more muscles to keep their mouths in perfect open shapes for making their pure vowels — yet they do not regress to comparatively 'lazy' English vowel habits. I'm afraid that argument does not follow. One speaks as one has learned.

The reason is that N terminates with an open mouth, --the starting position of the following vowel. The issue here is that, if the subsequent vowel is nasalized, it will sound like it belongs to the preceding consonant. Consider "-an eb-" and "-am eb-". To terminate the -N sound and prepare for a clean, un-nasalized vowel to follow on, I must terminate the nasal vibration and drop the tongue tip from the upper teeth. To terminate the -M sound and prepare for a clean, un-nasalized vowel to follow on, I must terminate the nasal vibration and open the mouth from the closed position it assumed. The difference is N tongue movement versus M lip movement. Because the tongue is more agile than the lips, it will get into position quicker for a clean vowel to follow. The lips are slower and so there is more chance that, in smooth speech, the follow-on vowel inherits part of the nasal sound,--it gets slurred with the M and sounds like it belongs to it (myotacism).


I'm afraid that's also totally subjective, and not true. It's a good sounding theory, but it's fully a matter of opinion, and nothing to do with actual human physionomy. Also, you seem to suggest that the natural principles of liaison, which always happen except in the most halting, super-clearly spoken phrases, do not apply — but they do.

In all a good thought, but maybe I wasn't clear enough in my initial statement about Japanese ã‚“: that this gramme represents the same sounds as generated by Latin final '-m'. (By the way, Japanene ã‚“ is very special in that it only occurs at the end of words or syllables; that is, it is always final like Latin final '-m.')

[Since I don't know if what I'm saying makes sense in English, I won't try this in Latin.


You've earned a break. :)
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby Amadeus » Thu May 22, 2008 8:16 pm

adrianus wrote:Salve Amadee
I know for a fact that cows in Ireland say "MMMMM" nasally, without any vowels! I have never met a cow from Spain, however.


So cows don't open their mouth when mooing?

If "scriptust" for "scriptum est" is evidence for omission of an M sound, then "scriptumst" for "scriptum est" in Terence and elsewhere is evidence of inclusion of an M sound.


One would be supporting evidence for nasalization, the other for sandhi, no?

Amadeus wrote:You're forgetting about the evidence they provide also for the sounding of terminal M in all cases other than before a vowel.


Of course. The -m is pronounced when followed by the semi-consonants j & v. When followed by consonants, sandhi applies (if I understand that phenomenon correctly), and then it can change into -n and other consonants.
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Lucus Eques » Thu May 22, 2008 8:50 pm

Amadeus wrote:
If "scriptust" for "scriptum est" is evidence for omission of an M sound, then "scriptumst" for "scriptum est" in Terence and elsewhere is evidence of inclusion of an M sound.


One would be supporting evidence for nasalization, the other for sandhi, no?


True. Moreover, Adrian, that they leave 'm' in the contraction "scriptumst" (as I do when I write "scriptumst," "factumst") does not mean that the 'm' was pronounced closed, any more than if the word is merely "scriptum." Moreover, 'm' coming before 's' would reduce into nasalizing the preceding vowel in any case, just as 'n' does before 'f' and 's', making us certain that "scriptumst" would be pronounced scriptũst.

Amadeus wrote:You're forgetting about the evidence they provide also for the sounding of terminal M in all cases other than before a vowel.


Of course. The -m is pronounced when followed by the semi-consonants j & v. When followed by consonants, sandhi applies (if I understand that phenomenon correctly), and then it can change into -n and other consonants.


Yup.
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby adrianus » Thu May 22, 2008 8:55 pm

Lucus wrote:I'm afraid that's also totally subjective, and not true. It's a good sounding theory, but it's fully a matter of opinion, and nothing to do with actual human physionomy. Also, you seem to suggest that the natural principles of liaison which always happen except in the most halting, super-clearly spoken phrases do not apply — but they do.

You rightly say this is an opinion, but it's a potentially testable one. As to its having nothing to do with human physiognomy, I suppose you mean just that it's untrue. Have you tested this hypothesis or do you just know intuitively that it is false? If the latter, surely your opinion also is just that, --an opinion. You know, of course, that in experiments of this nature involving much variation in subjects for study one only seeks statistical significance, rather than right and wrong answers. Nor am I suggesting anything which would not be discernable in good clear speech in English, for example.

Rectè dicis me opinionem offerre, atquin opinionem quae explorari possit. Quod nullo modò ad physiognomiam attinens, vis dicere thesem falsum esse, ut suspicor. Eamne probavisti vel ità intuitivè scis? Posteriori casu, nonnè tu ipse opinionem enuntias? Ut affirmanter intellegis, experimentis huius generis in quibus res inspectatae significanter variabunt, significantiam statisticam et non veritam absolutam quaeras. Neque suggero res quae loquellâ clare et benè articulatâ anglicè puta non videantur.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby adrianus » Thu May 22, 2008 9:40 pm

Amadeus wrote:So cows don't open their mouth when mooing?

Cows do, but you don't need to to sound like a cow. That's not meant as an insult, Amadeus (although, it would be a great one, wouldn't it? :lol:). It means that when you make an "MMMM" sound with a closed mouth, it resembles a cow (especially when you change pitch up and down), and more so than any other animal around. Open your mouth and you have a growl like a dog; close it and you have a cow.

Aperit orem bos at non tibi oportet sic facere ut similis bovis sis. Me paenitet, Amadee, injuriam tibi non dicere volo (at optima injuria sit, nonné, cum ausa :lol:). Ut dicere volo, ore clauso sonum "MMMM" faciendo, similis bovis sones (et maximè in modulando), praeter ullum alium animalem in vicino. Orem aperi et ad instar canis mussabis; claude, et bovem habebis.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Amadeus » Thu May 22, 2008 9:57 pm

adrianus wrote:Cows do, but you don't need to to sound like a cow. That's not meant as an insult, Amadeus (although, it would be a great one, wouldn't it? :lol:). It means that when you make an "MMMM" sound with a closed mouth, it resembles a cow (especially when you change pitch up and down), and more so than any other animal around. Open your mouth and you have a growl like a dog; close it and you have a cow.


:lol: Good one.

Still, can't you sound like a cow if you do a nasal sound? This could be yet another ambiguity, since I think I can make a mooing sound by closing my lips first and making a true M and then opening them to make a nasal u.

Vale!
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Lucus Eques » Thu May 22, 2008 10:45 pm

We really need to Skype this conversation.
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby adrianus » Thu May 22, 2008 10:54 pm

Amadeus wrote:Still, can't you sound like a cow if you do a nasal sound? This could be yet another ambiguity, since I think I can make a mooing sound by closing my lips first and making a true M and then opening them to make a nasal u.

Sure, dear Amadeus. I wasn't challenging your abilities. :)
Non dubito, care Amadee. Tuas facultas non volui negare. :)

Lucus wrote:If "scriptust" for "scriptum est" is evidence for omission of an M sound, then "scriptumst" for "scriptum est" in Terence and elsewhere is evidence of inclusion of an M sound.If "scriptust" for "scriptum est" is evidence for omission of an M sound, then "scriptumst" for "scriptum est" in Terence and elsewhere is evidence of inclusion of an M sound.

If X then Y, but NOT X therefore NOT Y.
If you accept the logic that omission of a letter means dropping a sound then by the same logic including the letter means including the sound.
There can be other reasons for dropping a letter, one of which could be lack of space.
You would not like to apply the same logic to a medieval manuscript containing no examples of word-ending M, where a tilde or other mark of abbreviation was used instead.

Si X tunc Y, at X non est ergo non est Y.
Si omissio litterae sonum deesse significet, eâdem ratione inclusio sonum adesse ostendit.
Fortasse alias rationes fuisse quare littera omissa sit, ut puta spatium careret.
Casu manuscripti aevi medii in quo omnes M terminantes careant et titulis (~) surrogentur, non similiter arguas litteram non sonari.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby adrianus » Thu May 22, 2008 11:03 pm

Lucus Eques wrote:We really need to Skype this conversation.

When? This Sunday is good for me in the evening. What about you, Amadeus? Quando? Vesperi die Solis vacabo. Et tu, Amadee?
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Amadeus » Thu May 22, 2008 11:18 pm

adrianus wrote:Sure, dear Amadeus. I wasn't challenging your abilities. :)


:? Come, come, Adriane, you know I meant something else.

Lucus Eques wrote:We really need to Skype this conversation.


Tempting, tempting... Could I join and just listen? I'm afraid my English is far from perfect :P . Plus, I wouldn't have anything original to contribute. Up til now I've only just tried to make sense of both your arguments. :)
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby Lucus Eques » Thu May 22, 2008 11:54 pm

Sadly (happily, actually) my girlfriend is coming to visit and staying indefinitely starting tomorrow. Therefore I won't even be posting, likely, in that time period. It's her birthday, in fact. I'm giving her Lingua Latina! since she's shown great interest in learning Latin (don't worry, that's not the only thing I'm giving her; that's really just the cherry on the cake). So you two can figure it out maybe. Otherwise we can set something up next week.
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby adrianus » Fri May 23, 2008 1:41 am

Amadeus wrote: :? Come, come, Adriane, you know I meant something else.

When a chance for a joke presents itself, I seldom can resist. It a real problem I have. Sincerest apologies, Amadeus.
Occasione jocandi nactâ, rarò me resistere possum. Vitium serium mihi est. Quod dixi, Amadee, sincerè purgo. :oops:

Until next week, Luke. Have a good weekend!
Usque ad septimanam proximam, Luci. Bonum finem septimanae!
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Amadeus » Fri May 23, 2008 3:22 am

adrianus wrote:When a chance for a joke presents itself, I seldom can resist. It a real problem I have. Sincerest apologies, Amadeus.


Ego te absolvo, mi fili, sed noli rursus id facere. :lol:
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!

Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
User avatar
Amadeus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: In a van down by the river

Postby adrianus » Fri May 23, 2008 4:50 pm

adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Divisio in syllabas compositorum

Postby adrianus » Sun May 25, 2008 12:32 pm

Syllable division in compound words. Divisio in syllabas compositorum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscian wrote:Priscian's grammar is based on the earlier works of Herodian and Apollonius. The examples it includes to illustrate the rules preserve numerous fragments from Latin authors which would otherwise have been lost, including Ennius, Pacuvius, Accius, Lucilius, Cato and Varro. But the authors whom he quotes most frequently are Virgil, and, next to him, Terence, Cicero, Plautus; then Lucan, Horace, Juvenal, Sallust, Statius, Ovid, Livy and Persius.

Priscian (floruit 500 Aevo Commune), Institutiones Grammaticae, liber secundus, De Syllaba, K, 2, pp.45,46, wrote:Si antecedens syllaba terminet in consonantem, necesse est etiam sequentem a consonante incipere, ut 'artus', 'ille', arduus', nisi sit compositum, ut 'abea', 'adeo', 'pereo'. Herodianus tamen de orthographia ostendit, rationabilius esse sonoriusque quantum ad ipsam vocis prolationem, in compositis quoque simplicium regulam in ordinandis syllabarum literis servare. Obicitur tamen huic illud, quod oportet ergo 'oblitus', 'oblatus', 'obruo', 'abrado', et similia, si transit in secundum syllabam more simplicium dictionum, primam communem habere in metris, ut possit etiam corripi: sed nusquam invenitur. Praeterea 'circumeo' et 'circumago' et similia non paterentur elisionem m in pronuntiatione, si transiret in sequentem syllabam m, nec in 'perhibeo', 'exhibeo', 'inhumatus', 'anhelo', 'inhibeo', 'adhuc', 'abhinc' et similibus secundae syllabae principalis aspiraretur vocalis, si terminalis consonans praepositionis in eam transiret, quomodo in 'istic', 'istaec', 'istuc'. Si in media dictione syllaba a vocali incipit, necesse est antecedentem quoque, nisi sit composita, in vocalem terminari, ut 'pietas', 'curialis', 'pareo', 'ruo', 'munio'. Est tamen quando in compositis etiam subtrahitur consonans, ut 'coeo, cois'.
Principales syllabae, hoc est in principio dictionum positae, ab omnibus incipere literis, desinere tamen non in omnes possunt, sed in has: vocales quidem omnes, a quacumque consonante incipiat sequens syllaba, ut 'mare', 'genus', 'filius', 'votum', 'ludus'; in consonantes vero, si sequens syllaba a vocali incipiat, non possunt desinere, nisi, sicut supra dictum est, in dictionibus, quae ex praepositioninus in consonantes desinentibus vel aliis partibus orationis sint compositae, ut 'abutor', 'oboedio', 'subeo', 'aduro', 'ineo', 'exacuo', 'intereo', 'perago', 'transeo', 'praetereo', 'alterutrum'. Nec tamen, si sequens a consonante incipit, licet antecedenti in quamcumque consonantem desinere; ergo per singulas consonantes, ut potero, id tractare conabor."

Adrianus wrote:If the preceding syllable should terminate in a consonant, the following syllable necessarily must begin with a consonant also, as with 'ar-tus', 'il-le', ar-duus', unless it is a compound word, such as 'ab-ea', 'ad-eo', 'per-eo'. Herodianus, however, in "De Orthographia" says that it is more sensible and sonorous, so far as concerns exact utterance (articulation), to observe the rule of uncompounded words about the letter arrangement of syllables also for compound words. In objection to this, is what ought to happen with words such as 'oblitus', 'oblatus', 'obruo', 'abrado', if it [the first consonant] moves to the second syllable in the fashion of uncompounded words, the first (syllable) would be common in verse, so that one could shorten it: but that is found nowhere. In addition, such words as 'circumeo' and 'circumago' would not have undergone elision of M in pronunctiation, if M were to have been transferred to the following syllable, nor in such words as 'perhibeo', 'exhibeo', 'inhumatus', 'anhelo', 'inhibeo', 'adhuc', and 'abhinc' would the initial vowel of the second syllable have been aspirated, if the final consonant of the preposition had transferred to it, as happened in 'istic', 'istaec', 'istuc'. If a syllable begins with a vowel in the middle of a word, unless it is a compound word, the preceding syllable must end also with a vowel, as with 'pietas', 'curialis', 'pareo', 'ruo', 'munio'. There are, though, times when a consonant is dropped from a compound, as in 'coeo, cois'.
Initial syllables, that is, ones placed at the beginning of words, can begin with all letters but can end only with these: all vowels certainly, should the following syllable start with whatever consonant, as with 'mare', 'genus', 'filius', 'votum', 'ludus'; however, if the following syllable should begin with a vowel, it cannot end with consonants, unless, as said above, with words composed from prepositions or other parts of speech ending in consonants, such as 'abutor', 'oboedio', 'subeo', 'aduro', 'ineo', 'exacuo', 'intereo', 'perago', 'transeo', 'praetereo', 'alterutrum'. Nor yet is it permissible, if the following starts with any consonant, for the former to end in anything other than a single consonant; which one should try to accomplish if one can. [.ie., 'obstruo' = 'ob-struo' and 'transeo' = 'tran-seo', I interpret, without totally closing the door on 'trans-eo'.]


N.B. Priscian challenges Herodian, ca. 180-250 CE, whom he himself describes as the most celebrated grammarian. This is also wonderful evidence of use of 'h' in hiatus, and of terminal-M elided in compounds. I can give separate evidence (plus more) that letter 's' in middle of word transfers to the preceding syllable, if it ends in a vowel.
Nota benè. Auctoritatem Herodiani Priscianus invitat (quem maximum auctorem artis grammaticae putavit). Mirabilè, quoque, hoc locus usum 'h' litterae cum hiato demonstrat, item elisionem M litterae compositis. Separatim, testimonia dare potero, 's' litteram in syllabam praecedentem quae vocale terminatur transire, et caetera aliorum generum.

Nota benè etiám:
Pharr, Vergil's Aeneid (1998), Grammatical Appendix, p.2, §13, wrote:Syllables...Exceptions. Compound words are divided according to their original elements, as ab-est, he is absent; trans-eo, I pass across.


First occurrence of 'abeo' in the Aeneid is at line 196, and it is divided 'ab-euntibus'.
Primò occurrit 'abeo' verbum in hac lineâ: "litore Trinacrio dederatque abeuntibus heros" =
"li-to-re | Tri-na-cri- | -o de-de- | rat qu(e) ab - | -(e -> j )un-ti-bu- | s (h)e-ros"
In 'ab-(e)un-ti-bu-s... ' syllabas, verbum dividitur (id est auribus, 'ab-jun-ti-bu-s...')

Vide quoque "-i-o" hiatum (quod "i-jo" sonitur, ut mihi videtur)
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Lucus Eques » Tue May 27, 2008 3:04 am

I only have time to comment on this.

adrianus wrote:Thanks, Luke. I was going on Whitaker there: "analyzo, analyzare, analyzavi, analyzatus V [GXXDK] NeoLatin lesser analyse." What about a verb such as 'baptizo', by the way?


Most areas where Americans write '-ize' are correct, while the British '-ise' is in error (another exception: "recognise," altered ultimately from "recognoscere," and that legitimizes the 's' not the 'z', which is a hypercorrection of sorts). But the few '-yse' ones should be with an 's', due to etymology, not 'z' as Americans will standardize/hypercorrect. So, "βαπτιζειν" -> "baptizare" follows, as does English "baptize."
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby adrianus » Tue May 27, 2008 4:59 pm

Lucus wrote:Most areas where Americans write '-ize' are correct, while the British '-ise' is in error
I thought we were making progress when you said the following:
Cum sic dixisti, nos profectos esse censui:
Lucus wrote:let's just say I've grown. If I said Nuntii Latini's convention was "in error," then what I will say now is I find their convenion annoying and un-Classical. It's all opinion anyway, based on a variety of evidence, historical and otherwise.
Oblivisceris Anglicos à Francogallicis talia verba mutuatos esse, sed intellego quod vis dicere. Hodiè Lexicon Recentem Latinitatis accepi et pro "analizzare" (Italicè --Z litteras nota) dat "inquiro", "exploro", "pervestigo".
Remember that the English borrowed such words from the French, but I know what you mean. I got Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis today and it advises "inquiro", "exploro", "pervestigo" for "analizzare" (in Italian --more z's).
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Lucus Eques » Tue May 27, 2008 6:19 pm

The syllable division notions you put forth are beyond baffling to me, Adrian. I cannot comprehend how anyone could be convinced of some of those ideas, if not proposing excess artificiality. Therefore I admit not to understand what you are saying, and await our Skype conversation when these matters can be brought to light — or rather, to sound wave.


adrianus wrote:
Lucus wrote:Most areas where Americans write '-ize' are correct, while the British '-ise' is in error
I thought we were making progress when you said the following:
Cum sic dixisti, nos profectos esse censui:
Lucus wrote:let's just say I've grown. If I said Nuntii Latini's convention was "in error," then what I will say now is I find their convenion annoying and un-Classical. It's all opinion anyway, based on a variety of evidence, historical and otherwise.
Oblivisceris Anglicos à Francogallicis talia verba mutuatos esse, sed intellego quod vis dicere. Hodiè Lexicon Recentem Latinitatis accepi et pro "analizzare" (Italicè --Z litteras nota) dat "inquiro", "exploro", "pervestigo".
Remember that the English borrowed such words from the French, but I know what you mean. I got Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis today and it advises "inquiro", "exploro", "pervestigo" for "analizzare" (in Italian --more z's).


Yes, Italian uses a double 'z', and Italian is Italian and does to govern our tongue, altho its eccentricities and varieties are of intrigue.

As for French, we are not governed by their tongue either — keep in mind that standardized orthography is a very new concept, and the Transatlantic problems we experience are due to rigidity and ignorance, and spellings with a 'z' in this position exsisted alongside those with an 's' through the Mediaeval and Renaissance periods. Besides, being inclined toward the British, as you might be purely for geographical reasons, you surely are not imitating the French coleur with Commonwealth "colour."

While, on the other hand, "programme" is preferable to American "program" because all the consonants are preserved — why chop out consonants? They inform us on etymology and on history.
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby cdm2003 » Tue May 27, 2008 7:27 pm

Please let us know about the time and date of the skype conversation. I, for one, am quite eager to listen and learn.
Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae
User avatar
cdm2003
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:54 pm
Location: Kansas City, Missouri, USA

Postby adrianus » Tue May 27, 2008 8:16 pm

Lucus wrote:Besides, being inclined toward the British, as you might be purely for geographical reasons, you surely are not imitating the French coleur with Commonwealth "colour."
You lost me there, Luke.
His sententiis, Luci, me exclusisti.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby timeodanaos » Tue May 27, 2008 10:48 pm

Luce, while you are briefly on the topic of English language ortography, I've been meaning to ask you why you choose to always and consistently write 'thru' and 'altho' etc. - I know these forms exist, and their phonological justification is obvious. I personally find them less pleasing to the eye, but wh have you chosen these spellings?
timeodanaos
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Hafnia, Denmark

Postby adrianus » Thu May 29, 2008 10:49 am

Lucus wrote:The syllable division notions you put forth are beyond baffling to me, Adrian. I cannot comprehend how anyone could be convinced of some of those ideas, if not proposing excess artificiality.
This book, for example, will help to understand about syllable division in English (especially §5.4 Syllable Division, pp.76-78 ) . Vide hunc librum, exempli gratiâ:
Charles Kreidler, The Pronunciation of English (2004, p.78 ) preview online at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4chvbyvXDVIC ), wrote:In these examples [final, finish, April, mystery, ugly], the intervocalic consonant, or the first consonant of an intervocalic cluster, is ambisyllablic because it comes between a stressed vowel and an unstressed one, or between two unstressed vowels. When a consonant, or a cluster like st-, dr- etc. comes before the vowel of a strong syllable, whether stressed or not, the consonant or cluster is clearly in the strong syllable: re'peat, de'clare, de'stroy, 'pene,trate. Compare 'deepen and de'pend, the noun 'record and the verb re'cord."

Rules for syllable division in [spoken] English
(where V is a vowel and C is a consonant and '.' is the syllable break)
1. break between vowels V.V (e.g., 'ne.on', 'cha.os', 'cru.el')
2. V1.CV2 (where V2 is strong), otherwise ambisyllablic (in cases where V1 strong and V2 weak or V1 and V2 both weak) i.e., V1C.V2 or V1.CV2 or in between.
3. If consonant cluster can start a word then all consonants in cluster go with following vowel
4. If consonant cluster cannot start a word, the second syllable begins with a single consonant or part of the consonant cluster that can start a syllable.

I made a note of some of the points you can refer to from his Chapter 8. Some Consequences of Phonotactics (p136). These are especially useful as background for points that I hope to get to about recognition of the phonemic value of Hiatus and of Word Division in Latin in published research.
Adrianus, drawing attention to points checkable in Kreidler online, wrote:Ambiguities as to what syllable a consonant or vowel belongs may be resolved by careful attention to Aspiration, Vowel nasality, Sonorant length, Fricative /r/.
Aspiration: /k/ in I scream, Lou skis, like you and ice cream, loose keys, my cue; /t/ in night rate and dye trade.
Vowel nasality: The /É™/ in an aim and an oyster but not a name and a noise. Also seem able and see Mabel.
Sonorant length: syllable final vowels are longer than when followed by a consonant in the same syllable (see Mabel, Lou skis, gray day, my cue, I scream, dye trade vs seem able, loose keys, Grade A, like you, ice cream, night rate). /ai/ in final position differs also than before voiceless consonant. Syllable-final /n/ in been selected is longer than since erected.
Fricative /r/: the /r/ of nitrate, dye trade and we dressed is articulated with some friction after /t/ and /d/. In night rate and we'd rest it is articulated similarly to when in initial position.

Kreidler is Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at Georgetown University.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby adrianus » Fri May 30, 2008 7:45 pm

Salve Amadee

I thought about your question about poetry and speech and found the shortest, simplest poem I could. A children's verse for the game "I'm the king of the castle, and you're a dirty rascal", when you climb up and recite it until pushed off and the roles reverse. Porphyrio, on Horace, first gives it:
Quaestionem tuam de poesi loquellâque cogitavi et poemam brevissimam merissimamque inveni quàm potui. Puerilis versus est circà ludo illum "Ego rex castelli, tuus degener verbero", cùm ascendis et recitas, usque dum deturbaris, dehinc partes permutabuntur. Primus Porphyrio poemam citavit, de Hortio dicens:

Rex erit qui rectè faciet;
Qui non faciet, non erit.

I recorded it ( http://www.adrianmallonmultimedia.com/l ... it_qui.mov ) to illustrate how poetry is rhythmically quantitative rather than accentual, but I did raise pitch on word accents. Look at how rhythm overrides rules. Trochaic septenarius [Dum da/ Dum da/ Dum da/ Dum da || Dum da/ Dum da/ Dum da/ Dum (pause)], it scans both as [-^/-^/-^/-^ || -^/-^/-^/- pause] or as [-^/->/-^/-> || -^/->/-^/- pause], where - (long), ^ (short), > irrational measure, i.e., anything you care to squeeze in), and there's a pause at the end (seven measures in the last line).

By the rule V.CV, faciet should be "fa-c(i)et" = short + long but the rhythm calls for long + (short or irrational). By VC.V we get "fac-iet". Note also that "iet" is long and supposed to fit into a short beat. In fact, it runs into the next line's syllable and the unusual speeding + extension on final-t + pitch & volume rise on 'qui' indicates word break and line break. Counter-intuitive if you follow only the rules but it's clear to the ear. Note how the first 'non' is short (which is impossible according to the rules) but the second is 'long'. 'Faciet' involves hiatus, of course, and squeezed into the short beat! Sounds as good as a glided vowel (or i -> consonantal j) and better than dropping the 'i' altogether. In comedy, Allen & Greenough say tribach, irrational spondee, cyclic dactyl or apparent anapaest can be substituted for any of the first six feet; a tribach for the seventh. The same seems true for clever riddles and epigrams, too, such as

Qui de nobis longe venio late venio. Solve me.
I come far and wide from among us (from us I come long and widely). Who am I? --Petronius, c. 60CE --Hair? ) and

Postquam Crassus carbo factus, Carbo crassus factus est.
When Crassus was cremated, Carbo became fat. (--possibly off Crassus's estate, says Matthews, 'Some Puns on Roman 'Cognomina', Greece and Rome, Vol 20, no.1, 1973, pp.20-24)

Here's what I take from this. Rhythm is everything in classical poetry. When you sing to the rhythm, it's amazing what can be merged and fitted before you ever need to drop sounds altogether. For this reason, I believe poetry does not necessarily involve anything that compromises the understandability of the phrasing and, if it does, then either the word-order of the verse could possibly be improved or I should rethink my articulation.
Ecce de his rebus quod puto. Arte poeticâ aevi classici, rhythmus res magni momenti est. In cantando cum rhythmo, mirum est quantum mergere et accomodare potes sine opus tibi erit sonos omittere. Eâ ratione, non continuò implicat ars poetica ullam rem quae comprehensionem sententiae constringat. Si aliter, vel dubius est in verso ordo dictionum vel famen meum retractare debeo.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Lucus Eques » Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:19 am

Amadeus, we were talking of elision in Spanish, and, as I suspected, it is as rampant as in Latin and Italian:

http://spanish.about.com/cs/pronunciati ... speech.htm

That you are mostly unaware of it is testament to your easy comprehension of your native tongue, even with all the elisions — meaning that Latin full of elision, by comparison, is quite possible, and in fact is just so.
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

PreviousNext

Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 60 guests