Lucus Eques wrote:Of course! It's understandable if you weren't aware of this; most educators of the classics are terrible these days and have no idea about the real languages. In any case, yes; Latin poetry is just Latin prose in a certain metre. Great orators like Cicero would use the natural rhythms, quantities, and metres of speech to emphasize a point; the Romans were quite conscious of it, you can be sure, as were the Greeks. And to the modern case of elision in speech and poetry, Italian follows the same pattern identically. In short, the mechanics of Latin poetry and prose are identical.
cantator wrote:I'm not sure I agree with you re: identical mechanics in Latin prose and poetry. I agree that elision likely occurs, but I'm not so sure it's as enforced in prose as in the poetry. I need to study more Latin phonology (Vox Latina, here I come).
Lucus Eques wrote:If you didn't notice major elisions, I'd say it's because Spanish naturally does them all the time, so it wouldn't be as jarring for you as it is for Anglophones.
Amadeus wrote:That aside, let me just say, that I've looked all over the Internet (if that's possible) and haven't found what we are doing here, to wit (!), recording Latin prose. So you, my friend, are a pioneer, and I bet that if we all pitch in we can make a significant contribution to the learning of Latin. When did Latin teachers and students ever had the advantage of having recordings of different pronunciations from different countries all in one place? Maybe this is the beginning of a mini-revolution?
Sigma wrote:Wow... Just wow... I've saved the transcript and your recording, and if I ever need a motivational boost, now I have one.
On a side note, why did you use <j> in your transcript? When I saved it, I went through and replaced each one with an <i>. So much nicer.
Also, if you're looking for something more to record, may I reccomend any passage from Vergil's Aeneid? That should have a nice epic feel to it.
Lucus Eques wrote: for this reason I more strongly advocate the universal use of 'i' and 'u' when writing Latin (I maintain my website by the same convention).
jjhayes84 wrote:Why is it that the character 'u' is preferred, when (unless I'm mistaken) the character 'v' is what the Romans actually used because it is easier to carve?
Personally, I don't think people should make too big a deal over i/j or v/u usage--on either side of the argument. The Romans also didn't have miniscules, but is any one of us willing to revert from that too? I think that we can use Js and Vs and miniscules without taking the "Latin-ness" out of Latin.
Amadeus wrote:Ave, Luce!
Just a couple of observations, nothing to be worried about. Ok?
After hearing both recordings, it seems to me that "io" is not a diphthong, but a hiatus, no? According to the books I've read, there are only 5 diphthongs, namely: ae, oe, au, eu, ei, ui. I'm thinking the rest are hiati (?).
You've done a good job of trilling the r's, but maybe you are trilling a wee too much? To my ears at least, there should be a difference between 'r' and 'rr'.
jjhayes84 wrote:Lucus Eques wrote: for this reason I more strongly advocate the universal use of 'i' and 'u' when writing Latin (I maintain my website by the same convention).
Why is it that the character 'u' is preferred, when (unless I'm mistaken) the character 'v' is what the Romans actually used because it is easier to carve?
Lucus Eques wrote:What do you mean to say? Do you mean, in, for instance, my name, "Ä LÅ«ciÅ"? this "io"? Indeed, they are two vowels, though it was common in speech for the 'i' vowel to become consonantal, as it did in Italian. In the first Georgic of Vergil, he has "et-jam" scanned only two versus away from "et-i-am." Conversely, the exclamation "io!" may be written "jo!" and the 'i' is a consonant.
jjhayes84 wrote:Thanks! I probably should have poked around a bit more before derailing this conversation with my tangental question. My apologies!
Amadeus wrote:...I may be totally wrong, but, from what I gather, 'i or u + vowel' is NOT a diphthong (vowel+vowel), but a sequence of semi-consonant+vowel. Thus, the rule of 5 diphthongs is saved.
edonnelly wrote:jjhayes84 wrote:Thanks! I probably should have poked around a bit more before derailing this conversation with my tangental question. My apologies!
I hope you didn't mistake the tone of my post. I very much enjoy those types of conversations (because I learn a lot from them) and wasn't even trying to prevent another, I just wanted to prepare you for the vigor with which some of the people on both sides of those issues will defend their position.
Lucus Eques wrote:Here we go, from book IV of the Aeneid...
Luce...that was great! I've heard some audio examples of Latin here and there but none with both the feeling and attention to scansion that you accomplished. You would have been an orator to be reckoned with in the Senate!
Amadeus wrote:Two minor points and a conclusion:
Modern Italian may be supporting evidence for certain latin pronunciations, but, meo judicio, weak evidence. Languages are always drifting: what today was a diphthong, yesterday could've been a hiatus.
As for Vergil's verse, it is only one line. Not enough to rule out artistic license.
Conclusion: I still have much to read about Latin phonetics, so I may be totally wrong, but, from what I gather, 'i or u + vowel' is NOT a diphthong (vowel+vowel), but a sequence of semi-consonant+vowel. Thus, the rule of 5 diphthongs is saved. The question now is, were there instances when "Luc-jo Ran-je-rjo" was ever broken up into hiati: "Lu-ci-o Ra-ni-e-ri-o". In short, which was commoner: "Lu-ci-o" or "Luc-jo"?
Cura, care amice, valetudinem tuam diligenter!