As for Mr. Milner â€” who does post here on Textkit on occasion â€” his efforts and passion deserve the most lauding, and I mean that with great sincerity.
As for ae sounding like oe â€” that's probably because the text he's reading from spells it cÅ“lum, rather than cÃ¦lum, rather than caelum. A common printing error followed by the pronunciation error.
Kyneto Valesio wrote:On that point I think you are probably mistaken. In one lesson, called "Swallowing the Dictionary" he says coelum in its place with the other words beginning "co". To me it sounds like "caelum". Perhaps the very fact that we have both "coelum" and "caelum" points to the fact that this represents some sort of received pronunciation. I don't know.
I have also been intensively listening to the Latinum podcast. The only pronunciation which I found odd was this one too, which wasn't realated to caelum/coelum in anyway: I am talking about the dative of qui (don't remember the exact contexts, but it probably was "Cui est liber?", or a related sentence). Is this intentional, or a mistake? If it is intentional, does anyone know if there is a rationale behind it?
Bennett: â€œNew Latin Grammarâ€
ui occurs almost exclusively in cui and huic. These words may be pronounced as though written kwee and wheek.
The nominative is â€˜keeâ€™.
His contemporaries might have noticed that and said something about it, surely.
Lucus Eques wrote:What is this English elision you speak of? The only example that comes to mind is Elizabethan "in th'afternoon."
You are using too big a brush to paint your picture. Some sounds (depending on where exactly you look and who you are talking about) in contemporary Irish-English show the influence of English, Scottish and Welsh planter settlement on language habits in the 16th-17th centuries, as the population (unwillingly and then inescapably) begins to move from Irish as a first language to English as a first language for the most part. That's significantly different from Irish-English speaking today distinctly resembling Shakespearean English. You would have to say it distinctly resembles many other ways of speaking also, and your point would be lost. Some contemporary Irish-English sounds will be similar to Shakespearean English-English and some will not, otherwise we might be led to expect the discovery of witness that a 16th-century Irish speaker of English sounded distinctly like a Shakespearean English person. To contemporaries it was the differences that were distinctive. Apologies, Luce. Maybe I'm arguing too much, because all I'm objecting to is the exaggeration of the word "distinct".Lucus Eques wrote:The modern Irish accents (all 30 or so of them) for the most part retain an older pronunciation of English, and most bear a distinct resemblance to Shakespearean.
Chris Weimer wrote:I don't think you understand the linguistics behind it, Lucus Eques. What do you think "ain't" is? Or gonna? One of my personal favorites is I'd've. I don't recall anyone using it before me, but it appears that it is now on Wikipedia.
adrianus wrote:Lucus Eques wrote:What is this English elision you speak of? The only example that comes to mind is Elizabethan "in th'afternoon."
When, in elocution lessons, you learn "correct" English pronunciation, you are taught to enunciate clearly: all the vowels (almost) and all the syllables. In natural speech, a native speaker does not enunciate so clearly but frequently elides (plus other things). The vowel sounds can be dropped altogether or they can be retained but distinctions between them become blurred. And consonants can get dropped and syllables run together. "How do you do?" becomes "How dew do?" Northern Ireland is almost like "Norn Ir'n" in some accents. The careful articulation of "received" pronunciation sounds artificial or "frightfully proper" or even used for comic effect today. Eliza Dolittle couldn't (sorry, "could not") get a presenter's job in the BBC today and Henry Higgins now works as a dialogue coach. (Oh hello, Chris. I hadn't spotted your earlier post. It's --oops, "it is"--as you say.)
1. The action of dropping out or suppressing: a. a letter or syllable in pronunciation; b. a passage in a book or connecting links in discourse. Also, an instance of either of these. Also fig.
1581 SIDNEY Apol. Poetrie (Arb.) 70 The Italian is so full of Vowels, that it must euer be cumbred with Elisions. 1589 PUTTENHAM Eng. Poesie II. xii[i]. (Arb.) 129 If there were no cause of elision. 1710 STEELE Tatler No. 230. 6 The..Elisions, by which Consonants of most obdurate Sound are joined together. 1836 HOR. SMITH Tin Trump. I. 2 Standard words..are arbitrarily cut off by elision. 1870 BOWEN Logic iii. 57 The science claims, therefore, to fill up the gaps and elisions of ordinary discourse. 1893 in Funk's Stand. Dict. 1936 R. CAMPBELL Mithraic Emblems 20 Seven hues in white elision. 1962 Sunday Times 28 Jan. 12/2 The elision of pay pause into pay restraint has at this stage scarcely been attempted. 1964 M. CRITCHLEY Developmental Dyslexia viii. 52 The process of learning to read entails the elision from the focus of attention of the confusing memory-images of the non-dominant hemisphere.
2. elision of the air: formerly assigned as the cause of sound (see quot.). Obs.
1626 BACON Sylva Â§124 The Cause given of Sound, that it should be an Elision of the Air (whereby, if they mean anything, they mean Cutting or Dividing, or else an Attenuating of the Air) is but a Terme of Ignorance. 1660 BOYLE New Exp. Phys.-Mech. Digress. 346 The Production and Modulation of the Voice by the Elision of the Air.
3. A breaking (so as to make a gap) by mechanical force. (Scarcely a recognised Eng. use.)
1760 tr. Juan & Ulloa, Voyage to S. Amer. (1772) II. 98 The sea formed these large cavities..by its continual elisions. 1881 Times 12 Mar., It [Casamicciola] is now half in ruins, and even those houses which have stood are crippled by elisions.
but I'm going to check my Cambridge English Grammar when I get home to see if linguistic usage maintains any fine distinctions, or is so mad as to say that, when an elision becomes so common it stops being an elision because it is now called a contraction!!!The elided form of a word or phrase may become a standard alternative for the full form, if used often enough. In English, this is called a contraction, such as can't from cannot. Contraction differs from elision in that contractions are set forms that have morphologized, but elisions are not.
OFFER STILL STANDS: If you agree to say that the Nuntii Latini broadcasters aren't in "error", I'll agree to say that I sound a BIT like William Shakespeare. Deal?Elision is the loss of a phoneme. In technical language we say that the phoneme is deleted or is realised as zero. Elision occurs more in fast casual speech, thus elision is a process of gradation. There are many examples of elision in English, a few are given below.
Loss of a weak vowel after voiceless plosives (p, t, k)
Potato Ï€â†”Ï„ÎµÎ™Ï„â†”Î¥ > Ï€Î—Ï„ÎµÎ™Ï„â†”Î¥ (schwa is lost, p is aspirated)
Avoidance of complex clusters
George the sixths throne ÏƒÎ™ÎºÏƒÎ¤Ïƒ Î¤Ïâ†”Î¥Î½ > ÏƒÎ™ÎºÏƒÎ¤Ïâ†”Î¥Î½
Loss of final v in â€˜ofâ€™ before consonants
Lots of them Î»Ï„Ïƒ â†”Ï– Î”â†”Î¼ > Î»Ï„Ïƒ â†” Î”â†”Î¼
He includes "don't" and "he's" under the category of elision and he gives the following typical examples (along with loads of others):A second type of simplification involves not an adjustment to a sound, but its complete removal. This is known as elision; the missing sound is said to have been elided.
Munroe: (in The Roman Pronunciation of Latin by Frances E. Lord)
UI (oo-Ã©e) as in cuirass.
Barrius wrote:FYI, The Roman Pronunciation of Latin cited above is available on the 'net for free: http://books.google.com/books?id=5R0BAA ... n#PPP11,M1
However, we need to remember that there are probably fewer than 1000 people on this planet who are fluent in Latin, and only around 10 000 or so (optimistic assessment)who can carry out a basic conversation on everyday topics.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 50 guests