Textkit Logo

accentuation with -que

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

accentuation with -que

Postby calvinist » Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:17 pm

I've been studying Latin for quite a while and I've always pronounced words with -que appended to them with their normal accent, as if they didn't have -que. For instance, gloria sapientiaque I have accented like gloria sapientia. Is this incorrect? To me it seems awkward to shift the accent when I've become accustomed to the words with their normal accents. What does everyone else do? Thanks in advance.
User avatar
calvinist
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Postby adrianus » Sat Sep 20, 2008 10:40 pm

It's not correct, calvinist.
You should say "gloriâ sapientiâque", as all the grammarians say to do.
Some shift the accent in the nominative to "gloria sapientiaque" but I stick with the standard "gloria sapientiaque" and like it (again as the grammarians say to do, I believe).

Falsus, ô calviniste, modus enuntiandi est.
Ablativo casu "gloriâ sapientiâque" scribo dicóque, quod facere grammatici antiqui dicunt. Nominativo, nonnulli (plerusque quidem et ego huius numeri) qui "gloria sapientiaque" dicunt, alii "gloria sapientiaque" (quod non amo). Credo quoquè grammaticos antiquos quidem "gloria sapientiaque" rectum esse dicere.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby metrodorus » Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:02 pm

And the same goes for any enclitic - such as -ne
metrodorus
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:19 pm

Postby calvinist » Thu Sep 25, 2008 6:32 am

thanks all!
User avatar
calvinist
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Postby cdm2003 » Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:59 pm

adrianus wrote:It's not correct, calvinist.


Now hold on one second. You are correct in stating that the grammarians say to move the accent up to the penultimate syllable once the enclitic has been added (though I believe there is some controversy between them as to exceptions to this rule). It's also been suggested by scholars that this notion is a little more controversial than the early grammarians let on. Even in Vox Latina, Allen suggests that this "rule" as stated may have been a false construction having nothing to do with how Latin was actually spoken at the time in an effort to force Latin to unnaturally sound like Greek.

Considering how people speak English today and how grammarians say it should be spoken should give us a little pause before blindly following Roman grammarians.

I think this topic has been mentioned here before, but I'll be darned if I can find the thread with the search function. Personally, I pronounce words with enclitics as I normally would pronounce them without. I would suggest to you, calvinist, that the change in pronunciation is optional, neither way necessarily being incorrect.

Chris
Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae
User avatar
cdm2003
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:54 pm
Location: Kansas City, Missouri, USA

Postby adrianus » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:42 pm

Maybe, Chris, however... What has been suggested by some modern writers about the Classical pronunciation of Latin might be right or might be wrong, but the written testimony of Latin speakers says "this is the way" and that's how it has been taught for at least 1600 years. It would be quite radical and modern to say I shall pronounce as I wish because it may have been otherwise 2000 years ago, in spite of the written evidence. Of course, pronunciation is conventional and has varied, but it's a bit extreme to reject so much teaching from those whose first language was latin because Allen says (Vox Latina, p.87), "It has been suggested..." Maybe instead of "It is not correct to say", I really should have said "it has never been recommended to say". Yes, I prefer that formula.

Verumtamen, Chris(tophore),... Utrum sit verum necné quod aliqui scriptores moderni suggerunt de linguae latinae locutionem aetate classicâ, aliter attestuntur ei qui mille sescentis annis (ad minimúm) et linguam loquebantur et hac super re scribebant docebantque. Quàm provocationem modernam, modo tuo enuntiare quià ità forsitan enuntiavisses ante haec dua millia annorum, indicia scripta contrá. Dicere potes certé, modum loquendi convenientem esse et mutabilem, sed intemperans totas scriptoras abdicare illorum qui à natu latinè loquebantur, et sic propter haec verba Alleni (apud librum Vox Latina nomine, pagina octoginta septem), "Suggestum est..." Fortassè non "falsum est" scripsisse debui, sed "ità non est et numquam erat commendatum". Hanc formulam quidem praefero.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3252
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Lucus Eques » Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:20 pm

With words like nominative "sapientiaque" or "Juliaque," it's tough because the stress was never on the 'i' — the method I read recommended long ago was the same as what Adrianus proposes — BUT to instead say "Júliaque" or "sapiéntiaque" in the nominative (essentially as if there were no enclitic), which was apparently the Classical mode as well).
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: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MSNbot Media, naturalphilosopher, Yahoo [Bot] and 80 guests

cron