Audio?

[Lucus Eques]

Amadeus, wonderful recording! You're well on your way to fluent oral proficiency in Latin! Really great. It's nice to hear a Spanish accent in Latin; naturally the ancient language was full of this variety; for by our variety, augemus sermonem nostrum.

BPQ, terrific Tacitus! I really like it. For you, and for Amadeus both, although I was not familiar with these texts from which you read, I understood every word and followed along perfectly. It was really enjoyable. I hope to hear more!

[annis]

I have spoken to Jeff, and we have his support to create an audio section for Latin. He says there's bandwidth and disk space to use, so we'll use it.

However, both Jeff and I are pretty busy at the moment. If someone could act as a single point of contact for me, to gather all this information, etc., that would be very helpful. I can handle basic web page setup and file management on the Textkit server, 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.

I'll watch this thread a little more carefully, but it might be wise for whoever will to act as contact to PM me once that's decided.

[Hu]

Superbus!

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.

I could do that. Other relevant books:

The Sounds of Latin (Kent)
The Pronunciation of Greek and Latin (Sturtevant)
The Latin Language (Palmer)
New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (Sihler)

I don't know of as many websites as I do for Greek, but let me look around a little.

Edit:
Phonemic Length in Latin
Latin Poetry and Reading Verse
Viva Voce
Wilfried Stroh recites Vergil

[bellum paxque]

I didn't bother checking the links offered in this postby benissimus, but some of them may be useful.

[Hu]

These appear to be good (i.e., accurate):
http://www.rhapsodes.fll.vt.edu/Latin.htm
http://www.princeton.edu/~clip/

[cantator]

These appear to be good (i.e., accurate):
http://www.rhapsodes.fll.vt.edu/Latin.htm
http://www.princeton.edu/~clip/

Interesting. The Flash presentations at Princeton are very cool, but too short. The Propertius example is only a fragment of the whole poem, I don't know why they couldn't have included it entire.

Sonkowsky's reading of Horace 1-22 was engaging. I noted that he uses English short e and i sounds, both of which I thought were unused in CL pronunciation. He's also very sing-song in his pitch variance, I prefer a plainer recitation.

Anyway, all the recordings I've heard indicate that we're on the right track with our own versions, and that there is still considerable discrepancy between scholars as to how the language really sounded.

Another note: The reading of Pindar at the Princeton site clearly ignores the accents as written. The problems of the pitch indicators in Greek and the matter of ictus in Latin are (IMPO) two of the most important issues facing oral recitation in those languages. Frankly, I believe that reading Greek without at least attempting some pitch variance is like speaking Chinese without regard to the pitch levels in that language, i.e. it's not really Chinese without the pitches. Ictus in Latin is tougher, since there are no orthographic indicators to help, but I'm planning to continue studying the relationship of ictus to accent in Latin verse. Fortunam ad me volete !

A thought: The Greeks likely used musical instruments to accompany the lyric poems, and there may have even been short dance forms. The Romans appear to have simply acquired the verse forms, i.e. without the musical accompaniment. Ergo quaero: Did the Latin poets know that music and dance ?

Despite my carping (and largely uninformed) criticism, I'm just pleased as can be to see (and hear!) this material. It should be brought to the attention of classics instructors and students everywhere, and I hope Textkit provides a handy link-farm for these and other readings.

Hu, thank you for these links !

[arillio]

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.

[cantator]

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.

You are most welcome, thank you for listening to them. Be sure to check out the other readings linked in various messages throughout this thread. There's some variance in presentation, but none of us claim to be reading "just like the Romans".

Interaxus has already asked for some Ovid, so I'll probably read some selections. I think the story of Pyramus & Thisbe would make a good selection, and possibly Niobe's tragic speech. Btw, I'm reading the story of Jason and Medea now. Ovid is truly wonderful.

[Interaxus]

Hi,

Does anyone else find the professors’ performances somewhat strained and over-dramatic? For example:
http://www.rhapsodes.fll.vt.edu/juvenal.htm
http://www.rhapsodes.fll.vt.edu/martial.htm

Since we will never know exactly how the Romans themselves declaimed their poetry or prose, perhaps the rhetorical restraint of the Textkittens is no more anachronistic than the professors' declamatory style. Maybe it's better attuned to contemporary ears.

I have question on a certain detail. The lady professor at
http://www.rhapsodes.fll.vt.edu/seneca.htm
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 ke’l for kettle). What theory of pronunciation justifies that?

I hasten to add that I’m really glad the professors put their offerings on-line. Despite my (strictly lay) reservations, I find their readings instructive and fun to listen to. A great learning resource in combination with the Latin and English texts.

Cantator: as a musical man, what do you think of this approach:

http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/consortium/ ... intro.html

Select Program II – Miser Catulle (Catullus and “Listen to the poem sung in latinâ€￾. Personally, I’m hooked.

Cheers,
Int

[Hu]

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 ke’l for kettle). What theory of pronunciation justifies that?

None, other than the reader's own laziness and incompetence at the proper sound of Latin.

[cantator]

Cantator: as a musical man, what do you think of this approach:

http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/consortium/ ... intro.html

Select Program II – Miser Catulle (Catullus and “Listen to the poem sung in latinâ€￾.

Well, they certainly demonstrate the virtue of enthusiasm, don't they ? It's good fun, thanks for the link.

Are you familiar with Orff's Catulli Carmina ? I'm not so fond of that piece as his Carmina Burana, but it's yet another approach to musically rendering Catullus. As far as I can tell Orff dispensed with quantity, so the versification isn't right. The piece is of interest mainly to Orff fans, it's nowhere near as popular as the Carmina Burana.

[Hu]

As far as I can tell Orff dispensed with quantity, so the versification isn't right.

Quare I despise Orff's works.

[Interaxus]

Hu: Well, I confess I love Orff's Carmina Burana. 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).

Cheers,
Int

[cantator]

As far as I can tell Orff dispensed with quantity, so the versification isn't right.

Quare I despise Orff's works.

What, all three of them ?

I love some of his settings of the Carmina Burana. The metrics of the poetry are well-suited to his new-found style (he destroyed all previous works), and he was a good melodist with the material. If he knew about the extant music for the Medieval poetry it clearly had no influence on his own tunes. And in his day no-one had even begun to actually perform secular Medieval music, so he was free to approach the poems in his own way.

Orff's CB was seminal in getting me into Latin. Not long after hearing it I read Helen Waddell's "The Wandering Scholars" and I was hooked. Pound's literary criticism was another spur.

But these days I prefer listening to the realizations by the New London Consort and other contemporary performers of Medieval music. I still crank up Orff's CB now and then, especially to hear his setting of the Archpoet's masterpiece (too bad he didn't do the whole poem).

[cantator]

In fact, was quantity still religiously observed by medieval munks?

Dummodo bibendi.

Cantator: I've heard but never really taken to Catulli Carmina but I must give them another hearing (despite vowel-length violations).

I think what worked in the CB just doesn't make it in that one. He did something similar with poems by Sappho and (I think) other Greek lyric poets in the third installment of his trilogy, equally unsuccessful. There are good reasons the whole thing is rarely performed, but the CB will always be a hit. Just my two drachmas, of course.

Let us know what you think of the Catulli Carmina via Carl Orff.

Almost forgot to mention: I've added a recording of the Copa Surisca to this site :

http://linux-sound.org/latin-audio-examples/

I hope you enjoy it. There are a few lines I'd like to do over, but not today.

[Deudeditus]

Amadeus, well done, amice. my iPod will be graced by thine voice.

-Jon

[gildardo]

Hmmm... I will admit I haven't read the whole thread -- I will do so eventually, but as I've only found it a couple of hours ago and I've been doing other things, I've only skimmed a bit. I have read the first couple of pages, and have listened to some of cantator's and the last amadeus' audio.

Actually, I have been eager to hear some spoken Latin -- classical Latin, that is.

There's at least one link I've found somewhere -- I'll post it later -- where some academic people post some examples of their pronounciation. Well, I don't want to repeat a link, so I will read the whole thread first.

However I do want to add my two cents for now: I am perfectly bilingual in both Spanish and English (I've spoken both languages most of my life, and I've got university degrees from both Mexican and American institutions), and I can tell the BIG difference between the Bs and Ps, and Ts and Ds in both languages.

I also speak some French, and I know for a fact that these consonants are pretty much the same in both languages. I don't speak Italian, but from what I have heard, I can say they are also the same as in French and Spanish -- I could be wrong of course.

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.

Not that I didn't like cantator's pronounciation, though! I really enjoyed it.

I did notice on Amadeus' pronounciation that consonant V sounded more like a Spanish U, whereas I try to pronounce it more like an English W, with probably a little more frontal articulation -- so as to justify its later transformation into a modern V (as in volcano) sound. I also try my hardest to make the accent of words more "tonal" than show a distinctive stress on a syllable. This is hard, as I am working on my best guess...

Oh well, I don't have a microphone to record my own speech and have it critiqued. I'll see if I can borrow one from someone; or better yet, I'll see if I can buy an inexpensive one.

[cantator]

Here's a good link posted in the Classical/Medieval thread :

http://manybooks.net/titles/lordfranetext058rlat10.html

The Roman Pronunciation Of Latin, by Frances Lord. It goes through each letter of the Latin alphabet, with copious commentary from Martius Victorinus, Priscian, Munro, et al. I'm really enjoying this book. It's a freely downloadable PDF (donations accepted) and is nicely viewable on the Adobe Acrobat Reader.

However, I do take issue with his remark re: "... the tongue in which Cicero spoke and Horace sung". We have no indication that Horace even came close to an instrument, and there's little or no evidence that any of the classical-era Latin lyrics were composed with melodies. I've asked about the music for Catullus's epithalamia, and I think Horace's Carmen Saecularum may have been intended for musical accompaniment. But it seems we know less about the music of the ancient world than we do about the pronunciation of its languages.

It's also endearing to read that Munro had a "conviction" regarding the relationship of Latin orthography to its actual sound. Munro and Ellis are scholastic giants, it's nice to know that sometimes even the Titans have to go with their gut-feelings.

TADW_Elessar: Gratias ago tibi !

[TADW_Elessar]

TADW_Elessar: Gratias ago tibi !

Nihil est, vero. Gratias potius agimus ei qui librum scripsit!

[bellum paxque]

gilardo said:

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.

gilardo, I'd love to hear your own rendition of some Latin once you've managed to acquire a decent microphone. Also, I'm really interested in the difference you mention between Romance consonants and Germanic consonants. Being unfluent in Spanish and imperfectly familiar with French, I'm not really sure what this difference means (i.e. sounds like). 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. Maybe you could record a short sample of the same passages first with English consonants and next with Spanish ones? It would be highly illustrative at least for me.

At any rate, I'm glad you found this thread - and I hope you have many pleasant hours here at textkit.

Regards,

David

[Lucus Eques]

David, if you have some time for Skype, I could show you the differences.

The best model we have available for Latin consonants is the basic Italian one. Simply, Germanic consonants, like our own, particularly in initial position are highly aspirated, while Latin ones not nearly as much, and Greek ones even less so (they had separate letters for the aspirated ones). Most significant is the centre of sound generated in the dentals of, say, 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.

[Hu]

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.

[jjhayes84]

I would like to express my thanks to those of you who have posting audio recordings in this topic. Personally, my reciting of Latin poetry has improved a hundredfold since listening to you guys. Kudos to you.

Josh

[cantator]

As promised, here's a recording of some different approaches to pronouncing the Latin letter U as a consonant :

http://linux-sound.org/u-demo.mp3

I'm digesting the information I've been eating from Frances Lord's book, so I'm likely to make some changes in my pronunciation. Interesting stuff.

[Amadeus]

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.

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:

¿Puede imponerse igualmente la pronunciación labiodental de la v, como han querido muchos gramáticos, 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 Española has abandoned the labiodental v.

Vale!

[nostos]

y hoy solo algunos maestros trasnochados mantienen con terquedad la vieja doctrina.

[Lucus Eques]

Cantator, thank you for the recording; you have a good voice for it.

Why, again, is the English 'w' sound "clearly wrong"? It's hard to hear, though, since it ought to be vÄ«vÄ￾mus, yet I only hear vivÄ￾mus. I brought up Lord's commentary a while back; you may have seen that thread. At length I was convinced that the evidence he præsented for consonantal 'u' was somewhat misleading, and ambiguous. Still, I'd like to go over it again.

[bellum paxque]

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:

Rosenblat wrote:
¿Puede imponerse igualmente la pronunciación labiodental de la v, como han querido muchos gramáticos, 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 Española has abandoned the labiodental v.

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: the last bit is something like "and there are only a few masters? "trasnochados" (?!) holding with "terquedad" (?) to the old doctrine. So I get the drift but it sounds like there's a bit more punch there that I'm missing.

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.

I too am baffled on this point. "Th," on the other hand, does seem to form between the teeth.

With regards,

David

[Lucus Eques]

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.

[Hu]

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.

So what you're syaing is that the mouth opens when saying "t"? I think I understand you now.

[Lucus Eques]

Rather, that the teeth separate from a closed position, if at all.

[cantator]

Why, again, is the English 'w' sound "clearly wrong"? It's hard to hear, though, since it ought to be vÄ«vÄ￾mus, yet I only hear vivÄ￾mus.

Sorry, I was not paying sufficient attention to my quantities. I was trying to make the sound of wee-wa-mus, the Baba Wawa sound that someone else pointed out as so annoying. English W as applied to the Latin sounds too light to me, it lacks propulsive force for the vowels.

I brought up Lord's commentary a while back; you may have seen that thread. At length I was convinced that the evidence he præsented for consonantal 'u' was somewhat misleading, and ambiguous. Still, I'd like to go over it again.

I'm studying that text closely. In Part II he states (brackets mine) :

"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."

This is the sound I tried to create in the third example.

The evidence presented in Part I is indeed confusing and serves to illustrate the disagreement among scholars. For example, what does modern phonological research have to say about the sound (if any) of the Greek digamma ? And if the digamma is equivalent to Latin consonantal U, what do the Greek grammarians have to say about its fricative nature ?

In the end I conclude that I am a Northern barbarian with some appreciation for quantity and plenty of room for phonological improvement. Otherwise I'm A-okay.

[Amadeus]

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.

Oh, ok. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if you were taught that there's a difference between b and v. I myself was taught that and on ocassions I will make the v labiodental, though it's useless. Anyone will understand what I mean if I say "vaca" or "baca" (cow).

Also, I'm struggling to understand thhe quote:

It seems that the undertaking has failed completely, and today only a few antiquated teachers hold stubbornly to the old doctrine.

[Amadeus]

"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."

This is what I tried yesterday in my readings, i.e., a W with tighter lips, almost closed, and I noticed that "vestros" sounded, with the new pronunciation, like Spanish "vuestros". This is exciting. I think I'm gonna stick with this, and abandon the English W.

[Lucus Eques]

The problem is that Lord seems not to know what German does, or other languages. German W is identical to English V; unless that consonant has changed in the past one hundred years, he was dead wrong on that analogy.

And he missed the obvious analogy. Lord there in his recommendation is describing the v/b of Spanish, which is not a labio-dental fricative like English/Italian F or V, but instead a bilabial fricative. That is of course what the sound certainly became in Spanish. In short, it is the voiced version of whistling.

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.

In modern Greek, β has become identical to English V. Victorinus compares F, U-consonant, β, Ï￾ and indicates all of these have at least the same force (namely, they are all labial fricatives of some sort), for indeed by the time of Victorinus both Latin consonantal U and Greek β and Ï￾ had become the same sound: English V. The problem is that Victorinus lived three hundred years after the time period that concerns us, and that Latin consonantal U eventually becomes identical to English V is not in quæstion.

[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.

This unfortunately doesn't tell us any more than that Ï￾ and consonant U share the same sound at the same time periods. However, Greek's transformation with Ï￾ and β becoming English V happens about the same time as Latin goes through similar changes. Aeolic Ï￾ could easily have been like English W around the time of Caesar, for Caesar compares the consonant U with it, while changing centuries letter both sounds to English V.

Why did they not turn it off with the simple explanation which they give to the consonantal I—that of double I? What more natural than to speak of consonant U as “double 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.

Again, this is inconclusive, as with Caesar's 90-degree digamma. Quintilian is definitely fairly classically oriented time-wise, not surviving the first century. Still, that means only that Aeolian Ï￾ and Latin U-consonant are indeed still the same, whether the sound shared by these figures be English W or English V.

[Lucus Eques]

More:

The first part of the description: “labias 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: “ac 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 “projectis labiisâ€￾ to some extent, although not so marked as in vos; but we do not get anything like the same “profuso intentoque flatu vocisâ€￾ as in vos.

This is interesting, but apparently Lord didn't actually look in the mirror on this one! 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! We can then be certain without any shadow of a doubt, at least from Nigidius' time and perspective, that U-consonant was absolutely not English 'V'.

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]

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 “Cafneas!â€￾—a sound far more suggestive of Cave-ne-eas! than “Cauneas!â€￾ of Cawe ne eas!

This is yet another incorrect assertion, and misleading. "..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..." What the heck is he talking about? Lord is insisting, incorrectly, that the Greek name Καυνεας never started with a "cow," if I may employ the English æquivalent, but instead "calf," to continue the obtuse simile. This is a load of bull. In Modern Greek, all αυ, ευ diphthongs are no longer diphthongs; ευχαÏ￾ιστώ means "thank you," and is pronounced thusly: "efharistó," roughly. But this is only a feature of the modern language, not the ancient one, and Lord's strangely derived knowledge that these modern aspects of Greek were æternal is dreadfully ignorant.

Καυνεας would have pronounced his name like it sounded, indeed as it as transcribed: Cauneas. And CAUE NE EAS becoming CAU NEAS is a great example of Latin's transition between consonantal and vocalic U. In the very word itself, cauēre, the supine is cautus. Perhaps you would insist that this is an archaic remanent where consonantal U was still like English W. Yet we see in Cicero's very jest that, at least in Latin during the Classical period, consonantal U was still close to vocalic U, and likely the same as English W.

Allen positively refutes the possibility that Greek αυ had become 'af'/'av' : "47. The Jewish catacombs at Rome still indicate a diphthongal value in the 2-3 c. A.D." (Vox Graeca, Allen, p. 80 footnote).

It is a shame that Lord was so sentimentally against the English W version of the sound; it utterly colored his thinking and reasoning. For the rest of that work is beautifully sound, and othewise even rivals Allen's Vox Latina.

As for the "wawa" sound of Latin U-consonant, whereby it sounds like English W and to Amadeus sounds like baby talk, let us ask ourselves: what does a baby do most often in Latin? If you say uÄ￾git you'd be right on! uÄ￾gÄ«re is onomatopoeic, and this word is no more likely to have started with the sound of English V than Ancient Greek sheep would have cried "vee! vee!"

[Amadeus]

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.

Amadeus Luco s.p.d.,

My oh my. That was a very good read, Luke. It is obvious you are deeply in love with nostra lingua latina. And you are right, the German W is not a bilabial, but a labiodental fricative (I'm still learning the IPA alphabet). However, you still haven't explained the "spiritus" related with the latin V, which goes against its pronunciation as a labiovelar W. My impression is that the Latin V might be (as you suggest) a voiced bilabial fricative, 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, ambición), for example in "lobo".

[Amadeus]

As for the "wawa" sound of Latin U-consonant, whereby it sounds like English W and to Amadeus sounds like baby talk,

Whoa, wait a minute. The "Baba Wawa" I'm talking about is not baby-talk, but the SNL character played by Gilda Radner in mockery of Barbara Walters. Man, that's funny!

[nostos]

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, ambición), for example in "lobo".

Aha! You made it clear for me, Amadeus! The whole tiome I was trying to think of where that b could be a voiced bilabial fricative rather than a voiced bilabial plosive . . . and that's it, yer right! I actually had to look it up in Intrroducing Phonetics, when Lucius said bilabial fricative, and then tentatively concluded that it doesn't happen in Mexico (must be those Castillians!) . . . but that's it, of course! The difference is subtle but definitly there.

I'm actually excited about phonetics!