-um

[adrianus]

Oops. Me paenitet.

[Lucus Eques]

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.

[adrianus]

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?)

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.]

[Lucus Eques]

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! Being of Irish descent myself, I appreciate the notion.

[Amadeus]

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. But, anyway, I've tried to follow both your logics, and this is what I've been able to gather, together with a few comentaries and questions. If I misunderstood the position of either of you (or if I forgot to add to your arguments), please let me know.

Thesis: The final -m is a nasalization of the preceding vowel.

Evidence:

1) Elision in poetry and early Roman inscriptions (e.g. scriptust for scriptum est). [But you do concede that elision all the time can lead to confusion and is not preferred in careful enunciation?]

2) Syllables ending in -m count as long, for example, Ītaliam fÄ￾tÅ￾ = Ītaliã fÄ￾tÅ￾, and diee = diem.

3) Sanskrit also just nasalized the accusative.

4) The nasal -m, because of its weakness, could change to -n or other consonants (including m, followed by a plosive).



Counter-thesis: The final -m is a very weak and quick closed M.

Evidence:

1) Quintilian, who says that it is hardly expressed, not extinguished, but merely obscured, and that it functions as a mark of distinction between the two vowels to prevent them from combining. [Could this also work for nasalization? Or is a nasal m always elided when followed by a vowel?]

2) Pompeius and Servius. Both of them speak of myotacism as the careless pronunciation of the final -m as an initial M, which indicates that the final -m was indeed made with closed lips and one could incur in this abuse if not careful. [However, was myotacism a problem in Classical times or just a barbarism of Late Latin? If the latter, then myotacism could just mean that the barbarians were pronouncing a written final -m and adding it to the following word, nothing more.] Two solutions are proposed [To whom, I wonder. To native Romans or to Barbarians?]: suspensio or exclusio. Both Pompeius and Servius favor suspensio, which means adding a stop after the closed lip -m. [Now, if Quintilian meant a nasal -m in the quote above, could not suspensio also refer to nasalization, since it could also serve as a mark of distinction?]

3) Priscian says that an -m would not suffer a long (by nature) vowel, but nasalizing the last vowel actually makes it long.


Am I correct, up to here? Let me know.

Valete!

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?

[Lucus Eques]

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

[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).

[Lucus Eques]

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.

[adrianus]

Salve Amadee,

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! 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! )

Opinaris graciliùs! 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. )

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

Ave, amice.

[adrianus]

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.

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]

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:

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:

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.

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'.

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:

Mytacismus est cum verborum coniunctio M litterae assiduitate colliditur ut si dicas 'mammam ipsam amo quasi meam animam'.

Fugienda est et consonans M inlisa vocalibus, ut 'verum enim'

[Lucus Eques]

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.

Ah, if only! Ah, utinam! Hahahae.

(A correction to the Latin (or Greek, magis): "analyse" in Greek is ἀναλÏ￾ω/ἀναλÏ￾ειν or more perfective ἀναλυσεῖν or even possibly ἀναλυσίζειν — analysare Latinly should be sufficient, and conforms with English "analyse" (don't be fooled by Americans who spell it with a 'z'! that spelling it quite incorrect from the etymological point of view!)

So, Adrian, good sir, you have got me into examining the texts sufficiently lately to sow the seeds of doubt! I find there is indeed ambiguity and a lack of clarity on the part of the ancient authors with regard to the description of this sound. They don't all seem to agree, signifying changes thru time. Moreover, the ones who do speak on the matter don't all make it clear that the sound in question would be the same as Allen confers, the same as Japanese '-n'. So, you've done you're part, good job.

Igitur, Adriane, bone vir, me prorsus compulsisti uti textus recens ipsos satis examinarer semina dubii colerem! Ambiguitas enim parumque claritatis rei mihi notum est ex verbis auctorum antiquorum quod ad hunc sonum attinet. Non omnes inter se consentiunt, quod mutationes soni per tempora significat. Ceterum illi loquentes haud clare positionem Alleni omnino confirmant, nec vero dicunt sonus per vim ut Nipponice '-n' habeatur. Ergo, partem tuam complesti, macte. .

As far as the Japanese '-n' mentioned above, I would like your commentary.

Quoad Nipponicam '-n' supra explicatam attinet, verba tua valde aestimarem..

"mammam ipsam amo quasi meam animam," the Martial quote, which is Classical, makes me think that there must have been something truly odd about this final '-m', that it in no way could have been like ours or like that in German or even Irish; hell, it was elided thru every time in this period. And why would it be a tongue twister if it were "normal" as in German or English? I think the evidence is very strong that it was representative of a sound that was vocalic, and not consonantal, considering the elision/contraction. Might you agree with this? Exactly what it sounded like would be harder to pin down. I still think the nasalized vowel is the best explanation. What counter theories do you have to explain it (keeping your arguments to the Classical period, of course, and not dependent on Late sources)?

"mammam ipsam amo quasi meam animam," versus Martialis, Classicus, me putare facit rem re vera insolitam de '-m' terminali esse debere, nullo modo nostrae similem nec Germanice nec Hibernice; littera mehercle eliditur his temporibus. Ac quomodo solvilingua esset si "recte" haberetur ut puta Germanice aut Anglice? Evidentiam compellentissimam puto sonum esse vocalem, nec consonantalem, cum elideretur/contraheretur. Huic fortasse assentireris? Sonum praecisum identificare difficile est. Vocalem nasalem puto etiannunc optimam explicationem. Explanationesne habes alteriores ad hunc sonum insolitum clarificandum (necesse est semper Classice profecto, numquam Tarde)?

[Amadeus]

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.

Vale!

[adrianus]

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!

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!

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.

[Amadeus]

Salve, Luce!

In response to your argument about elision not being confusing, I must say that in Spanish elision is not very common, or, at least, I can't find much information about this phenomenon in my language. So that's probably why I feel a little uncomfortable with systematically (not occasionally) eliding in Latin: I fear I won't be understood when (if ever) I speak Latine to someone.

Salve, Adriane!

The main reason I didn't mention Consentius is because he, unlike the others who speak of myotacism, didn't offer, IMO, a better solution to the problem. He just says to put another word not beginning with a vowel between the final -m and the initial vowel. Well what do we do when we can't do that?

As for Velius Longus, indeed he does suggest that the final -m is not a true M (m terminat nectamen in enuntiatione apparet", "ut apparet exprimi non debere"), but I was unsure what you were trying to say by quoting him. Anyway, he belongs in Lucus' column.

So here, again, is a summary of the discussion so far. (Ignoscite mihi si molesta haec methodus est.) The main issue of contention seems to revolve around myotacism.

Thesis: The final -m is a nasalization of the preceding vowel.

Evidence:

1) Elision in poetry and early Roman inscriptions (e.g. scriptust for scriptum est).

Objection: Elision could lead to misunderstanding or to a loss of clear speech, an issue which had been discussed by the Greeks (the latter, according to Adrianus).

2) Syllables ending in -m count as long, for example, Ītaliam fÄ￾tÅ￾ = Ītaliã fÄ￾tÅ￾, and diee = diem.

3) Sanskrit also just nasalized the accusative.

4) The nasal -m, because of its weakness, could change to -n or other consonants (including m, followed by a plosive).

5) The grammarian Velius Longus says that the final -m should be written half-way to indicate that it should not be <del>written</del> spoken.



Counter-thesis: The final -m is a very weak and quick closed M.

Evidence:

1) Quintilian says that it is hardly expressed, not extinguished, but merely obscured, and that it functions as a mark of distinction between the two vowels to prevent them from combining.

Objection: This could also be evidence for nasalization.

He also says that the final -m is like the mooing of a cow.

Question: Does a cow actually say "moo" or just "oo"?

2) 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).

Question: Is myotacism a barbarism or a problem even for native Romans? Was it a problem back in Classical times? Is it a problem at all (and therefore its correction a hypercorrection)?
Objection: Liaison is the pronunciation of the usually silent final consonant of a word when followed by a word beginning with a vowel. So the inference that the final -m is usually pronounced is wrong.

Two solutions are proposed to avoid liaison: suspensio or exclusio. Both Pompeius and Servius favor suspensio to avoid hiatus.

Objection: Suspension (a stop) could also work for nasalization.

3) Priscian says that an -m would not suffer a long (by nature) vowel, but nasalizing the last vowel actually makes it long.

[adrianus]

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]

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.

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.

[Lucus Eques]

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.

[Amadeus]

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?

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.

[Lucus Eques]

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.

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.

[adrianus]

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]

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? ). 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 ). 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.

[Amadeus]

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? ). 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.

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!

[Lucus Eques]

We really need to Skype this conversation.

[adrianus]

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.

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]

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?

[Amadeus]

Sure, dear Amadeus. I wasn't challenging your abilities.

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

We really need to Skype this conversation.

Tempting, tempting... Could I join and just listen? I'm afraid my English is far from perfect . Plus, I wouldn't have anything original to contribute. Up til now I've only just tried to make sense of both your arguments.

[Lucus Eques]

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.

[adrianus]

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.

Until next week, Luke. Have a good weekend!
Usque ad septimanam proximam, Luci. Bonum finem septimanae!

[Amadeus]

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.

[adrianus]

Compound words should be divided into the parts of which they are made up ; as, up-on, with-out, &c, and so in Latin words, ab-utor, in-ers, propter-ea, et-enim, &c. In like manner, when a syllable is added in the formation of the English verb; as, lov-ed, lov-ing, lov-eth, will-ing, &c.

Professor Higgins would agree wholeheartedly!! Corde cum consilio hoc concurrat Professor Henricus Higgins!!

Compounds retain the quantity of the words which compose them: as, oc-cido (cado), oc-cido (caedo), in-iquus (aequus).

They elaborated several major rules about the syllables:...5. The compound words are divided according to their elements: dis | tribuo, trans | eo etc.

...The other convention you are noting, and confusing for pronunciation, is that found in dictionaries and other reference or didactic tools, whereby the elements are divided to demonstrate to the learner etymology. But that has no relevance on pronunciation, or syllable division in poetry.

It begs that question for you to discount a rule of syllable division by saying it is etymological rather than phonological. Take the word, "ethnicity". You will divide it "eth-ni-ci-ty" but my dictionary will say "eth-nic-i-ty". You will say that is because of the etymology of the word, not the phonology. However, it can be pronounced both ways: "eth-ni'-ci-ty" or "eth-nic'-i-ty". Phonologically, I prefer "eth-nic'-i-ty" because it is etymologically clearer, but I know there will be times in rapid speech when I won't be able to distinguish either use. To know what I mean, you have just to exaggerate the accented syllable in each case and you will hear the difference between "-nic'-" and "-ni'-". Because phonemic sounds overlap in natural continuous speech, "-i-" in "-nic-i-" will sound a bit like "-ci-" but exaggeration will make it clear that the stressed 'c' can be, and is, expressed with the previous vowel. However, writing software, it's too laborious for me to distinguish such cases as this, and I go for the easy "eth-ni'-ci-ty" option in natural speech synthesis.

Quod regulam in syllabas dividendi abjectat, ut ad etymologiam et non ad phonologiam eam pertinere fingas, praesuppones quod convincere debes. Ecce verbum "ethnicity". Eum "eth-ni-ci-ty" divides; dictionarium meum "eth-nic-i-ty" dicit. Dices etymologiciae verbi et non phonologiae de causâ id esse. Duo modis haec verbi pronuntiari potest. : "eth-ni'-ci-ty" vel "eth-nic'-i-ty". Phonologicè, "eth-nic'-i-ty" praefero quià clariùs etymologicè intellegetur, occasiones erunt, autem, cum rapidè exprimentem eos distinguere non potero. Ut intellegas quod dicere volo, adaugeas accentum syllabae ambobus casibus at differentiam inter "-nic'-" atque "-ni'-" audies. Sonibus phonemicis in loquellâ naturali commiscentibus, "-i-" in "-nic-i-" similas ad "-ci-" sonabitur, adaugere autem clarum faciet litteram 'c' ad vocalem praecedentem pertinere. Cum autem partes programmationes scribo pro synthesem loquellae naturalis, magìs laboriosum est me casus tales distinguere, et "eth-ni'-ci-ty", quod facilius est, praefero.

Try the following with due care to enunciation. Use an exaggerated posh English accent on the first and an exaggerated Texan one on the second. Both are understandable.
Dicas quod sequitur, accuratè atqui superlato modo exprimens, accentu Anglici politi cum primò et Texiani cum secundò. Ambo intellegentur.

A. Their attendant envoys and others inevitably are employed in urging upon all avoidance of a transatlantic avenue.
B. Thei rattendan tenvoy san dother si-nevitably ya remploy di nurging gupo nal lavoidan ceofat tran-satlan ticavenue.

Accents change over time. To illustrate the extent to which American accents may have changed, here is something from the American grammarian Goold Brown (1791-1857),
Cum tempore accentus mutatur. Quam magnoperè accentum politum americanum mutatus esse, hoc locus apud Goold Brown (grammaticus americanus) fortasse ostendit

In dividing words into syllables, we are to be directed chiefly by the ear; it may be proper to observe, as far as practicable, the following rules.
Rule I. CONSONANTS. Consonants should generally be joined to the vowels or diphthongs which they modify in utterance; as, An-ax-ag'-o-ras, ap-os-tol'-i-cal.*...
*It is hoped that not many persons will be so much puzzled as are Dr. Latham and Professor Fowler, about the application of this rule. In their recent works on The English Language, these gentlemen say, "In certain words of more than one syllable, it is difficult to say to which syllable the intervening Consonant belongs. For instance, does the v in river and the v in fever belong to the first or to the second syllable? Are the words to be divided thus, ri-ver, fe-ver? or thus, riv-er, fev-er?", Fowler's E. Gram., 1850, 'a785; Latham's Hand-Book, p.95. Now I suppose it plain, that, by the rule given above, fever is to be divided in the former way, and river in the latter; thus, fe-ver, riv-er."

Verba grammatici nomine Wilson repetit (p.182)

"The syllables should not only be distinctly formed and pronounced, but pronounced as they are heard in the whole word" p.1 "The division of words into syllables, should, unquestionably, be the same in written, as in spoken language" (Wilson's Essay on Gram, p.37)

Post Scriptum

"analyse" in Greek is ἀναλÏ￾ω/ἀναλÏ￾ειν or more perfective ἀναλυσεῖν or even possibly ἀναλυσίζειν — analysare Latinly should be sufficient, and conforms with English "analyse" (don't be fooled by Americans who spell it with a 'z'! that spelling it quite incorrect from the etymological point of view!

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?

[adrianus]

Syllable division in compound words. Divisio in syllabas compositorum.

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.

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."

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:

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)

[Lucus Eques]

I only have time to comment on this.

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."

[adrianus]

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:

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).

[Lucus Eques]

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.

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:

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.

[cdm2003]

Please let us know about the time and date of the skype conversation. I, for one, am quite eager to listen and learn.

[adrianus]

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.

[timeodanaos]

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?

[adrianus]

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:

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.

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]

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.

[Lucus Eques]

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.