Textkit Logo

glottal stops in restored classical?

Here's where you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Moderator: thesaurus

glottal stops in restored classical?

Postby TOCAMom » Sun May 18, 2008 12:47 am

I am confused about the correct pronunciation of consecutive vowels - I have several recordings (both from Cambridge University Press and Bolchazy-Carducci) that include a glottal stop between the two vowels in words like "mortuus" or "filii." But "Vox Latina" does not seem to mention an intervocalic glottal stop (I will cofess I've only browsed the book, not read it cover to cover).

I am willing to accept the glottal stop if it's correct, but it sounds awful. I speculate they use it in recordings to make the point that the vowels are separate syllables. Can anyone clarify?
phpbb
TOCAMom
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: So Cal

Postby Lucus Eques » Sun May 18, 2008 2:27 am

Your intuition is correct! No glottal stops.

This makes it sound as if the 'u' vowels in "mortuus" rather blend together — they do, to an extent. A sensitive ear can pick up the difference. But inscriptional evidence (e.g. "mortus") confirms that Roman ears also detected a natural blending. But yes, two short syllables.

Imagine, in sheet music, two tied quarter notes that bridge a measure. They have the same sound as a half note on the same pitch — but rhythmically it is important to separate them as quarter notes since they are not in the same measure. Latin is similar. Does that analogy help?
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

re: intervocalic glottal stops

Postby TOCAMom » Mon May 19, 2008 2:37 am

You made my day!

I like your music metaphor and will remember it, although I was actually not having trouble pronouncing two syllables without a glottal stop - there is a nearly identical rule in Macedonian, which I speak fluently (for example, "they love" is "sakaat" - two flowing, musical syllables at the end with no intervocalic glottal stop). I was just struggling with its prevalence in recorded Latin. I will assume that is for the sake of clarity, but I still think it sounds awful.

Odd how important this question has become in our home.
phpbb
TOCAMom
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 11:54 pm
Location: So Cal

Postby cantator » Mon May 19, 2008 11:51 am

Lucus Eques wrote:Imagine, in sheet music, two tied quarter notes that bridge a measure. They have the same sound as a half note on the same pitch — but rhythmically it is important to separate them as quarter notes since they are not in the same measure.


Say what ?!

Normally tied notes receive a single excitation (on the first event, of course), no secondary rhythmic emphasis takes place.

Replace "rhythmically" with "orthographically" and I'm with you. :)

In a word like mortuus the final vowels are both articulated, but I agree that a glottal stop is incorrect. The vowels can be elided without extinguishing the quantities. This is actually close to a notational phenomenon in certain works by Beethoven, where two tied notes each receive an articulation mark, something possible only with wind instruments or bowed strings. Is that what you had in mind ?

IIRC such words eventually contracted adjacent vowels into a single syllable in later Lain and its derivatives.
Similis sum folio de quo ludunt venti.
User avatar
cantator
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:21 am
Location: NW Ohio USA

Postby Lucus Eques » Mon May 19, 2008 11:39 pm

Okay, replace "rhythmically" with "scansion-wise." (Scansion is a part of Latin rhythmic considerations, natural rhythm in prose and in poetry.)


Cool on the Beethoven thing.


BTW: "IIRC"?
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

Postby annis » Tue May 20, 2008 1:07 am

Lucus Eques wrote:BTW: "IIRC"?


If I Recall Correctly.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;
annis
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3397
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA

Postby Lucus Eques » Tue May 20, 2008 3:14 am

annis wrote:
Lucus Eques wrote:BTW: "IIRC"?


If I Recall Correctly.


Bingo. Thanks.
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA

cum and quum

Postby metrodorus » Tue May 20, 2008 8:28 am

Interesting, this thread came up just as I was ruminating about how to render the difference between cum and quum, on the Latinum podcast. Even before I had seen this thread, I had decided that the difference would be very subtle indeed, just a very very slight flow-through, as c and qu (Allen's rendering of this is 'Kw') are in practical terms identical, with qu simply pronounced with a slight protrusion of the lips, (Allen) giving it a slight vowel quality, but I still wanted to distinguish them, although technically this isn't a full example of a doubled vowel. I am always conscious of Cicero's quote about the musicality of Latin when spoken. I don't believe I have rendered it properly yet, but I will get this subtle sound nailed down soon enough after a few dozen more attempts at pronouncing it....
Evan Millner
metrodorus
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:19 pm

Postby Lucus Eques » Tue May 20, 2008 2:28 pm

Very interesting, Evan. Keep in mind that quum/cum has only one syllable, while "tuum" has two. That is, the arguments in this thread don't quite apply, altho it is an interesting tangent.
User avatar
Lucus Eques
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
Location: Tōkyō, IAPONIA


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bedwere, Godmy, Phil- and 49 guests