annis wrote: but I'm not the person to produce any of the text content, and it would be good to have at least some discussion explaining what the recordings are aiming at. A list of references, both web sites and books (if there are any other than Vox Latina to worry about) would be good, too.
arillio wrote:Dear Cantator,
I have just listened to the 'Latin Audio Examples' that you posted. Wow! That was fun. I hope you will consider putting "The Metamorphoses of Ovid" on your list. It is so very suitable for your style, with that 'reverb' and all -- I can just imagine the opening "In nova fert animus mutatas dicere formas..."
Thanks very much for the examples.
Interaxus wrote:pronounces suos as su-os, tuis as tu-is, tua as tu-a, tuos as tu-os, diem as di-em with a distinct break between the vowels almost as though there were a glottal stop (as in Cockney keâ€™l for kettle). What theory of pronunciation justifies that?
Interaxus wrote:Cantator: as a musical man, what do you think of this approach:
http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/consortium/ ... intro.html
Select Program II â€“ Miser Catulle (Catullus and â€œListen to the poem sung in latinâ€.
cantator wrote:As far as I can tell Orff dispensed with quantity, so the versification isn't right.
Hu wrote:cantator wrote:As far as I can tell Orff dispensed with quantity, so the versification isn't right.
Quare I despise Orff's works.
Interaxus wrote:In fact, was quantity still religiously observed by medieval munks?
Cantator: I've heard but never really taken to Catulli Carmina but I must give them another hearing (despite vowel-length violations).
So, I have been under the assumption that Classical Latin's Ps, Bs, Ts, and Ds are essentially the same as in modern Spanish or French (or Italian, unless they are different for it ). So, whenever I practice pronouncing Latin, I use my Spanish version of those consonants instead of the English ones -- oh, I also know a little German, and the same consonants are closer to the English ones than the Spanish-French versions.
Lucus Eques wrote:English: 't' and 'd' are made primarily between the teeth, while in Spanish, Italian, Greek, and most languages these dentals are formed just with the tongue behind the upper teeth.
bellum paxque wrote:Of course, some differences are obvious, such as Spanish b/v, but I'm not sure how the larger issue would affect the pronunciation of Latin.
Rosenblat wrote:Â¿Puede imponerse igualmente la pronunciaciÃ³n labiodental de la v, como han querido muchos gramÃ¡ticos, y la Academia durante siglos? Parece que la empresa ha fracasado del todo, y hoy solo algunos maestros trasnochados mantienen con terquedad la vieja doctrina.
Just a quick comment, bellumpaxque. There is no difference between b and v in Spanish. There was a difference a long time ago, but not since the 1500's. Today, the only ones who keep insisting on the v as labiodental, are... well... let me quote an authority on this:
Ã‚Â¿Puede imponerse igualmente la pronunciaciÃƒÂ³n labiodental de la v, como han querido muchos gramÃƒÂ¡ticos, y la Academia durante siglos? Parece que la empresa ha fracasado del todo, y hoy solo algunos maestros trasnochados mantienen con terquedad la vieja doctrina.
This quote is from the 70's, and today even the Real Academia EspaÃƒÂ±ola has abandoned the labiodental v.
English: 't' and 'd' are made primarily between the teeth, while in Spanish, Italian, Greek, and most languages these dentals are formed just with the tongue behind the upper teeth.
What do you mean? I say "t" and "d" with my tongue behind the upper teeth, on the aloveolar ridge. The tongue isn't "between the teeth" in any way.
Lucus Eques wrote:Ah yes, the between the teeth comment: I was never suggesting that the tongue were between the teeth when English 't' were articulated, for it is at the alveolar ridge, but instead that the source of our hissed, aspirated 't' is from between the teeth -- a reverse biting motion. This does not happen in the Mediterranean languages.
Lucus Eques wrote:Why, again, is the English 'w' sound "clearly wrong"? It's hard to hear, though, since it ought to be vÄ«vÄmus, yet I only hear vivÄmus.
I brought up Lord's commentary a while back; you may have seen that thread. At length I was convinced that the evidence he prÃ¦sented for consonantal 'u' was somewhat misleading, and ambiguous. Still, I'd like to go over it again.
bellum paxque wrote:Ah... I think my point was that there is a difference between the b in Spanish and the b in English, or so my somewhat fuzzy memory of high school suggests.
Also, I'm struggling to understand thhe quote:
Francis E. Lord wrote:"V (U consonant) [is pronounced] nearly as in verve, but labial, rather than labio-dental; like the German W (not like the English W). Make English V as nearly as may be done without touch[ing] the lower lip to the upper teeth."
In Marius Victorinus we find:
[Keil. v. VI. p. 23.] F autem apud Aeolis dumtaxat idem valere quod apud nos vau cum pro consonante scribitur, vocarique [Greek transliteration: bau] et digamma.
[Keil. v. II. p. 15.] U vero loco consonantis posita eandem prorsus in omnibus vim habuit apud Latinos quam apud Aeolis _digamma. Unde a plerisque ei nomen hoc datur quod apud Aeolis habuit olim [Greek letter: digamma] digamma, id est vau, ab ipsius voce profectum teste Varrone et Didymo, qui id ei nomen esse ostendunt. Pro quo Caesar hanc [Greek letter: digamma rotated 90 degress] figuram scribi voluit, quod quamvis illi recte visum est tamen consuetude antiqua superavit. Adeo autem hoc verum est quod pro Aeolico digamma [Greek letter: digamma] U ponitur.
Why did they not turn it off with the simple explanation which they give to the consonantal Iâ€”that of double I? What more natural than to speak of consonant U as â€œdouble Uâ€ (as we English do W). But on the contrary they expressly declare it to have a sound distinct and peculiar. Quintilian says that even if the form of the Aeolic digamma is rejected by the Romans, yet its force pursues them:
[Quint. XII. x. 29.] Aeolicae quoque litterae qua servum cervum_que dicimus, etiamsi forma a nobis repudiata est, vis tamen nos ipsa persequitur.
The first part of the description: â€œlabias sensim primores emovemus,â€ will apply to either sound, vos or wos, although better, as will appear upon consulting the mirror, to vos than to wos; but the second: â€œac spiritum atque animam porro versum et ad eos quibuscum sermonicamur intendimus,â€ will certainly apply far better to vos than to wos. In wos we get the â€œprojectis labiisâ€ to some extent, although not so marked as in vos; but we do not get anything like the same â€œprofuso intentoque flatu vocisâ€ as in vos.
Now when we remember that Caunos, whence these particular figs came, was a Greek town; that the fig-seller was very likely a Greek himself (Brundisium being a Greek port so to speak), but at any rate probably pronounced the name as it was doubtless always heard; and that U in such a connection is at present pronounced like our F or V, and we know of no time when it was pronounced like our U, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the fig-seller was crying â€œCafneas!â€â€”a sound far more suggestive of Cave-ne-eas! than â€œCauneas!â€ of Cawe ne eas!
Lucus Eques wrote:Using the 'w' of English, the lips project forward and together (note that Nigidius Figulus says labiis, lips plural! both of them). However, with the English V, only the bottom lip projects forward! [...]
Might it have been the bilabial fricative as in b/v of Spanish for Nigidulus? Possibly, but English W is far more adept at projecting both lips forward than Spanish v/b.
Lucus Eques wrote:As for the "wawa" sound of Latin U-consonant, whereby it sounds like English W and to Amadeus sounds like baby talk,
Amadeus wrote:which in Spanish corresponds to B in any other position that is not absolute initial and after a nasal (in those cases it is plosive: bestia, ambiciÃ³n), for example in "lobo".