Textkit Logo

Help: Intonation when asking questions.

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

Help: Intonation when asking questions.

Postby metrodorus » Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:31 am

I have just come across something in Comenius' Grammaticae Janualis that I have not noticed elsewhere. (pg 470 Opera Didactica Omnia)

This is what he says, in the section entitled " Sentiarum orthographia et orthotonia"

De legitima pronuntiatione et scriptione sententiarum habesne aliquid observandum? Sec haec:
1. Sententia indicative aequali tono profertur, neque signo aliquo scripto opus habet.

2. Sententia admirativa principium elevat, in fine autem punctum admirationis scriptum accipit:
Proh
______ dii immortales!

3. Sententia optativa principium elevat, finem deprimit, adscribiturque ille idem punctum voti.
Uti
____ nam adfius
________________ ses !

4. Sententiae interrogativae adscribuntur punctum interrogationis (?) pronuntiatur vero sic, ut elevetur tam principium quam finis:
Qvis_________ est?
__________ad


Qvis
____me_______cat?
________vo

In my recordings for Latinum, I have not followed this distinctive intonation pattern, which seems peculiar to me...but if it is sourced in the Roman Grammarians, I might give it a try. The question is, where does Comenius get his source for this, as he does not cite anything?
Certainly, I have not seen a reference to moving the accent to the final syllable in questions, and Adler, for example, does not accent his questions in this manner.
Opinions?

He also notes, in "Prosodia Vocum"
that there is an exception to the accenting rule with questions:
"latina quaedam (disyllaba et polysyllaba) transferunt accentum in ultimam, nempe
1. interrogative: An egO? Qvid tu dominE?
2. Habentia annexam particulam encliticam, que, ne, ce,met,tenus. ut nobis vobIsque.
(this one I was familiar with, and have seen mentioned in other grammars)
3. Ablativus primae et secundae declinationis, et genitivus quartae, circumflectuntur ( ad differentiam nominativi)
ut tabula, tabulA, calamo, calamO, Fructus, FructUs.
(does he here mean a long vowel, or a veritable circumflex, which he describes as " attollens et deprimens".
4. Composita cum fis, fit, acutum retinent in ultima. Ut calefIt. ( et non cAlefit, aut calEfit)
metrodorus
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:19 pm

Postby adrianus » Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:33 pm

That's how I learned to pronounce, because I follow a 15th-17th century curriculum, and certain ancient grammarians say the same: that in particular circumstances the final syllable is accented.
Apud Comenium aliosque saeculi ab quindecimo ad septendecimum, talem modum Latinum sonandi didici, et sic illi omnes auctores docent: singularibus in contextibus ultima syllaba accentum habet,—quod etiam quidam grammatici antiqui dicunt.
Last edited by adrianus on Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby adrianus » Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:53 pm

Furthermore, in saying to you the following,
Quinimmò, Metrodore, ità tibi in dicendo,
I do not wonder that things would seem peculiar to you. Before pretending to teach, one must learn to read without shades.
Non miror ut res tibi peculiares videantur. Ante quod docere praetendas, oportet ut legere discas perspicillo solario siné.
the final syllable of the proposition "siné" is acuted for two reasons: it appears out of place after the noun it refers to, and it appears at the sentence end (just the same way that adverbs are accented).
duabus rationibus, acutum accentum "siné" praepositionis ultimâ in syllabâ cadat: primo, sequitur praepositio nominem cui aptat; secundo, ea sententiam terminat (sicut quod etiam ad adverbiis pertinet).
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby metrodorus » Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:47 am

Adriane,

Thanks for your reply.
I had assumed Comenius bases what he says on at least one of the Ancient Grammarians - the question is, which of them? I do not have a copy of Keil - and I have not yet done my usual search of the literature using Google Books - I'll do that next. I have read a number of Latin grammar books - mostly 19th century ones, and a large number of texts on the pronunciation of Latin, and had not come across this. I will re-inspect my sources today, as I have some time to look into this.

Allen in Vox Latina only talks about the accent moving for enclitics, and does not mention the other instances cited by Comenius.

Also, Comenius' little diagrams showing intonation I have not seen elsewhere. They are very clear.

Adriane - you say you are using Renaissance texts to teach yourself Latin - and evidently you you come across similar statements in other authors - Citations would be really useful.

I have listened to a lot of people speak Latin, and have not noticed anyone using the tonal system in its full form, outlined by Comenius - however, if it is firmly sourced in the Roman Grammarians, then there is a strong argument for trying to teach it, or at least, make some demonstration recordings, showing how it would sound in practice, would you not agree?

There are so few people with the necessary academic expertise in this area - you are, by virtue of your explorations of renaissance grammar texts, probably the one of only a literal handful of people ( I am being an optimist here) able to answer this question, insofar as it relates to 15-17th century Latin grammars.

Evan.
metrodorus
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:19 pm

Postby metrodorus » Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:16 am

Steenbakkers "Spinozas Ethica from Manuscript to Print"
Chapter 2.
"Towards a history of accent marks in Neo-Latin" is very instructive.
Much of this chapter is viewable on Google Books.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WpLy ... =3#PPR5,M1
metrodorus
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:19 pm

Postby metrodorus » Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:04 pm

As I unearth more I will post it here, as a record for myself:

Loewe notes that the Benevantan manuscripts from around the year 900 use a system that follows the Roman Grammarians - – circumflex over long monosyllables, me, his, o, and over the long penult followed by a short ultima, pertinere, istius, filioque, etc, and the acute over short monosyllables , e.g. an, and over the antepenult, spiritibus, etc.

This is identical to the system used by Adler in his Practical Grammar.

Loewe notes that by the 1200's the acute alone was being used.
metrodorus
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:19 pm

Postby metrodorus » Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:01 pm

metrodorus
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:19 pm

Postby adrianus » Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:43 pm

Here is my decalogue of advice to you.
1. Read Kiel, or at least begin to read Kiel.
2. The Internet and Google Books are great, but this is "driveby" or "keyhole" scholarship. Try going to a real library or reading academic journal articles that lie beyond two clicks of the mouse.
3. As well as accurately taking in what was said, seek to understand what an author may have meant and why it was said, before hazarding an opinion about it. For example, if indeed Garde made that statement above, it is easily shown to be wrong,—unless the context reveals exactly what he is talking about and he is talking about broad generalities. It is hard to check your reference, though, because you don't give a title (possibly you are referring to Paul Garde, L’accent, Paris, 1968,—I suspect you omit the title because you have this reference from an online source which lacks the bibliography). Nor do you put the words in inverted commas, so I can't be sure of their accuracy because, when you introduce Allen, you do so less than reliably. Allen (in Vox Latina) says something different to how you represent his opinion (you make it sound like he agrees with your earlier statement from Garde).
4. Form a picture of how wide is the range of opinions on the matter of exceptional accenting in EVERY period.
5. Appreciate that accents change between, and even within, groups and places, and also through time.
6. Learn that university teaching has been driven by a tradition of Scholasticism that is a conservative force, and has more to do with guild control over institutionalized information than with the advancement of knowledge.
7. Listen to those educational reformists writing in Latin who condemn those whose knowledge comes from repeating the opinions of others.
8. Stop repeating the opinions of others.
9. Get back to Kiel and keep reading.
10. If you can't do these things, just keep doing what you are doing. Maybe you'll be praised for it. Is that what you're looking for? Possibly you do, because you say...
As I unearth more I will post it here, as a record for myself
Posting for others is proper and generous, but posting for oneself is a vanity.

Ecce tibi consilium meum ut decalogus:
Primò, tomos Henrici Kiel legas, vel eos legere instituas.
Secundò, mirum est interrete et Google Books, sed "volucre" vel "lucro" modo simile est eis investigare tantúm. Actualem bibliotecam visere te oportet, vel capitulos legere qui plus quàm bis globulum deprimere requirunt ut inveniantur.
Tertiò, tamquàm sedulò quod dicitur captas, ante quod opinionem tibi promulgas, sententiam auctoris quaeras, nec minùs intentionem. Exempli gratiâ, nescio an verò Garde dixisset quod suprà citavisti (nec titulum operis eius das nec signa orationis,—fortassè "L'Accent" librum Paul Garde scriptoris vis, qui liber Universitates Francogallicae anno 1968 Parisiensis imprimebat),—at si Garde id quidem dixit, planè erravit (nisi contextus hîc egens aliter manifestabit et auctorem verbis nuptis dixisse ostendetur,—suspicor te fonte interretiale usum esse quo bibliographica carebat). Eo (Garde) autem plùs quàm tibi fideo, quià quod dicit Allen (in suo libro "Vox Latina" nomine) malè demonstras.
Quartò, sentias quàm varias sunt opiniones de hac re (de exceptionibus ad regulas accentorum), et omne aevo.
Quintò, accentum et inter et intrâ locos gregesque, et per temporem mutari scias.
Sexto, discas ut universitates secundùm consuetudines Scholasticismi conservaticismique semper docent,—et plùs censurae quàm augmentis scientiarum ratio est, sicut est collegiorum opificum.
Septimò, novatores systemae Scholarum latinè scribentes audias, qui plagiarios semper condemnant.
Octavò, plagiarium esse desistas.
Nonò, ad opus Kiel revenis et assiduè perlegas.
Decimò, si ità facere non potes, eâdem obduras. Id faciendo fortassè, laudaberis. Estne quod quaesis? Est forsan, quoniam dicis ità:
As I unearth more I will post it here, as a record for myself
Aliis promulgare liberale est; tibi ipsi promulgare vanitas.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby metrodorus » Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:30 pm

All I am doing is posting what I find, as I made quite clear, I am using this as a notepad for my researches - in the hope others will add citations.

feel free to add yours.

I have drawn no conclusions yet, either way.

The quotes are from the text I cite on Spinoza. The article in that text has been reprinted in a number of journals as a monograph on the accent in renaissance texts.
I have not made up my mind either way.

Google books limited preview allows access to a massive amount of critical material. The web is pretty useless, but the google search allows one to read a huge number of books, and academic papers.

Allen is not misquoted, he quite clearly says that he thinks that even the idea that the accent rule was broken for penultimates was not done so in all cases - at least, my copy of Allen says as much.

I don't know anything about Garde, and have not read him, I just quoted a quote from him. him.
metrodorus
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:19 pm

Postby adrianus » Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:24 pm

I didn't say you misquoted Allen but that you misrepresented him, using him to make one dubious idea even more dubious that
The shift of stress caused by enclitics and proclitics is nowadays thought of as the only deviation from the otherwise absolute penultimate law...Allen even thinks that this may be an overgeneralisation, borrowed from the Greek.
by his point that not everyone may have stressed enclitics in the same way. In fact, Allen gives other types of examples of words that break the rules of accentuation, but somehow you omit reference to them, even though he talks about them right where you are looking in Vox Latina at the end of Chapter 5 (pp. 87,88 of the second edition, 1978). I was also complaining about the sort of pseudo-scholarship that makes the Internet such a hazardous research environment, where, rather than to the website or actual context where a piece of information was discovered, people gives references to sources that they haven't read, as if they had the book before them,— to sound more impressive, probably, like a very careless undergraduate, and in a flawed and worthless manner to boot [Garde, 1968 pg 103-4].

Te falsò verba apud Allen citavisse non dixi, magìs te quod dixit malè demonstravisse. Denotas Allen indicia exceptionum subruere. Verò autem Allen ipsis in paginis quas inspicis ampliùs exceptiones generum aliorum dat (videlicet in fine capituli quinti in paginis octoginta septem octoque editionis secundae),—de quibus non loqueris, quod incredibile est. Questus sum etiam de eruditione falsa, quâ interrete exquaesitoribus fit perfidum. Quae eruditio falsa monstrat non situm contextumne ubi informationes inveniantur sed fontem quae jacet ultrâ, sicut prae manibus suis fons erat,—sine dubito ad commovendum aliorum (quod studentis incuriosi est) et modo etiam defectivo futileque.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bedwere, Google Adsense [Bot], kplusonline and 83 guests