Χριστόφορος wrote:When I get around to learning Latin, I think it would be rather nice to read texts in the exact way the Romans would have read them, especially considering the effort I'd be taking to learn their language in the first place.
Lucus Eques wrote:The Irish language, for example, was once written in a very cumbersome alphabet that was designed for carving on wood — but was completely superseded by the Roman alphabet — indeed, the form with all its lowercase letters and punctuation that we know and love; and that is the official writing system for Irish.
Lucus Eques wrote:What radical reformation do you mean?
Lucus Eques wrote:It is for this reason I fully adopted "j" and "v," for Latin benefits in clarity of expression (the purpose of all language, fundamentally) — the Roman way of doing things, I found, was not always the best way.
Lucus Eques wrote:Here is an example of Imperial writing (it's a folio of Vergil):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... rtrait.jpg
Χριστόφορος wrote:I notice through reading various articles on the subject of Latin orthography, that the spelling conventions used nowadays differ quite a bit from the actual orthography used in ancient Rome. My question is, mainly just out sheer curiosity, where it is a) possible to obtain texts in the "authentic" orthography and if so, b) whether it is at all common for many people to do so. When I get around to learning Latin, I think it would be rather nice to read texts in the exact way the Romans would have read them, especially considering the effort I'd be taking to learn their language in the first place.
NuclearWarhead wrote:I have scanned three pages from Bischoff's Latin Palaeography so you can see the scripts out of context:
edonnelly wrote:Also, what are the three letters after "z" ?
Χριστόφορος wrote:Does anyone know what the original manuscripts looked like? How would Tacitus have written the whole thing?
I recommend these books, vastor // Hos libros tibi commendo, vastor
Jean Mallon, L'Écriture Latine (Paris, 1939)
Jean Mallon, Paléographie Romaine (Madrid, 1952)
Bernard Bischoff, Latin Palaeography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages (CUP, 1990)
Most importantly though, make sure to check out the illustrated examples of lettering from the historical documents.
Ante omnia autem, litteras textuales è codicibus historicis quae ibi exhibentur benè scrutinare.
Χριστόφορος wrote:Just bumping an old thread I made here. I figured it might be better than starting a new thread for essentially the same topic...
Anyway, I've taken an extract of Tacitus and am attempting to convert it to the original orthography. One of the reasons I'm attracted to Latin in the first place is the idea of reading the exact words the Romans would have used.
Can anyone confirm or correct the following passages?
Prima novo principatu mors Iunii Silani proconsulis Asiae ignaro Nerone per dolum Agrippinae paratur, non quia ingenii violentia exitium inritaverat, segnis et dominationibus aliis fastiditus, adeo ut C. Caesar pecudem auream eum appellare solitus sit: verum Agrippina fratri eius L. Silano necem molita ultorem metuebat, crebra vulgi fama anteponendum esse vixdum pueritiam egresso Neroni et imperium per scelus adepto virum aetate composita insontem, nobilem et, quod tunc spectaretur, e Caesarum posteris: quippe et Silanus divi Augusti abnepos erat. haec causa necis. ministri fuere P. Celer eques Romanus et Helius libertus, rei familiari principis in Asia impositi. ab his proconsuli venenum inter epulas datum est, apertius quam ut fallerent. nec minus properato Narcissus Claudii libertus, de cuius iurgiis adversus Agrippinam rettuli, aspera custodia et necessitate extrema ad mortem agitur, invito principe, cuius abditis vitiis per avaritiam ac prodigentiam mire congruebat.
I had to upload images of the edited versions, because they won't display properly otherwise:
In capitals, U replaced with V, without spaces or punctuation:
In capitals, U replaced with V, no punctuation expect for a middle dot as a space:
The second is near-impossible to read, and it seems the third is perhaps more in line with what would have been read. I just don't know for sure. Does anyone know what the original manuscripts looked like? How would Tacitus have written the whole thing?
Sorry if this seems silly, but I'm determined to do this!