Textkit Logo

Latin Syllabification.

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

Latin Syllabification.

Postby Sesquipedalian » Wed Jun 09, 2010 2:37 pm

Hello all,

I recently picked up a copy of Vox Latina and have been slowly working my way through it. One thing that struck me as odd was that there was no section on syllabification? Or have I missed something?

As I’m interested in the reconstructed classical pronunciation, are there any standardised/accepted rules regarding syllabification? I’ve searched through a few books and websites and the majority of the rules given are consistent with each other, but I’ve found a few rules that were mentioned in one place and not another and vice versa. I also noticed what seems to be a contradiction. So what I’ve done is made a list below, and hopefully someone can tell me if I’ve missed any rules, or whether any of the rules are incorrect.

1) A word has as many syllables as vowels or diphthongs.

2) Two contiguous vowels or a vowel and a diphthong are separated:
dea; de-a, and deae; de-ae.

3) A single consonant between two vowels goes with the second vowel:
amīcus; a-mī-cus.

This seems equivalent to: A consonant is pronounced with the vowel that follows it. A-ma-mus

4) Double consonants are always divided: Mitto; Mit-to.

5) When two or more consonants stand between two vowels, generally only the last consonant goes with the second vowel: consumptus, con-sump-tus.

6) However, a stop (p, b, t, d, c, g) plus a liquid (l, r) generally count as a single consonant and go with the following vowel: patrem, pa-trem; castra, cas-tra.

7) Also counted as single consonants are qu and the aspirates ch, ph, th, which should never be separated in syllabification: architectus, ar-chi-tec-tus, loquacem, lo-qua-cem.

I’m assuming ‘gu’ can also be added to this list?

8 ) When more then two consonants occur together, usually the first consonant goes with the preceding vowel. Monstrum; Mon-strum

9) Separate compound words into original parts.

There seems to be some contradiction between number 5 and 8. One is saying, if you have three consonants between two vowels, the first consonant goes with the preceding vowel, and the rest go with the second. The other says the reverse; that the last consonant goes with the second vowel and the others go with the first.

Any clarification on this will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance :D
Sesquipedalian
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:37 am
Location: Australia

Re: Latin Syllabification.

Postby adrianus » Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:11 pm

Sesquipedalian wrote:Also counted as single consonants are qu and the aspirates ch, ph, th...I’m assuming ‘gu’ can also be added to this list?

No // minimè, "arguo" = "ar-gu-o"

I removed the last bit of what I wrote because I want to think more about your contradiction.
Ultimam partem huius epistulae delevi quià de aenigmate tuo ampliùs cogitare volo.
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

Re: Latin Syllabification.

Postby adrianus » Wed Jun 09, 2010 4:46 pm

Sesquipedalian wrote:8 ) When more then two consonants occur together, usually the first consonant goes with the preceding vowel. Monstrum; Mon-strum

That is true, but not ONLY the first necessarily and others can too, so mons-trum, and not mon-strum.
Rectum est, at id alias consonantes qui sequuntur non repellit, ergo monstrum dictio ut mons-trum non ut mon-strum in syllabas dividitur.

But abstraho = abs-tra-ho because it's a compound word // sic dividitur quià dictio composita est.
In fact, however, you do more often say "ab-straho". // Verum dicere, "ab-stra-ho" saepiùs dicitur!

Maybe all (most?) const... words similarly must be considered compounded and divided con-st... // Fortassè eodem modò habendae sunt dictiones (vel plurimae) quae per const- incipiuntur.

Sesquipedalian wrote:Also counted as single consonants are qu and the aspirates ch, ph, th...I’m assuming ‘gu’ can also be added to this list?

I forgot that gu after n (as in lingua) can be added to that list.
Huius oblitus sum: verò gu compar litterarum in dictione (sicut lingua) n litteram sequens in tabulam inserenda est.

This is a can of worms. // Res nimis contorta est.
Last edited by adrianus on Wed Jun 09, 2010 8:03 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

Re: Latin Syllabification.

Postby adrianus » Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:37 pm

My advice is this, be happy with merely one contradiction, Sesquipedalian. When you look at what the grammarians (in Keil) say it gets really complicated, with a-mnis, a-stla, a-gnus, i-pse, Ae-tna and such like. :D

Meum consilium tibi, Sesquipedaliane, est hoc: contentus esto qui solam unam contradictionem inveneris. Scriptis grammaticorum antiquorum apud Keil lectis, multò major numerus contradictionum invenitur, exempli gratiâ a-mnis, a-stla, a-gnus, i-pse, Ae-tna et cetera talium.
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

Re: Latin Syllabification.

Postby adrianus » Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:57 am

I reckon that, if a word can begin with the combination of consonants, then generally that combination can begin a syllable in the middle of a word, but be prepared for wiser, older grammarians to split things according to one of the rules you cite. One does one way, another another. Take diphthongus. I reckon di-phthon-gus or diph-thon-gus are both OK and even ...o-ngus is arguable anciently. You should be broadminded in these alternative readings.

Ut puto, si dictio in aliquâ consonantium combinatione incipi potest, tunc mediâ in dictione quae syllaba eâdem combinatione facillimè incipietur. Ad syllabas dividendas secundum quamdam regulam à te citatam accingere. Quisque grammaticus doctus et antiquus eâ parte agere potest. Diphthongum dictionem intuere. Licet, meo judicio, alteruter dividendi modus, di-phthon-gus et diph-thon-gus. Et ...o-ngus quidem antiquè defendi posse. De hâc re (lectionum alternatarum), pateat animus tuus.
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

Re: Latin Syllabification.

Postby Sesquipedalian » Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:41 am

Hi Adrianus,

Thanks so much for clearing that up!

I had a look at Keil and saw some of the examples you mentioned. Very interesting divisions. One of the rules was ‘Never let a syllable end in a consonant if the consonant can possibly be pronounced at the beginning of the next syllable’. This was followed by examples such as ‘a-mnis’ and ‘a-gmen’. It seems strange though. If syllables didn’t end in a consonant, wouldn’t this have a pretty big impact on what syllable is heavy or light?

By the way do you have any recordings yourself in classical latin? I’ve noticed there’s a few websites around where scholars read various texts; are there any in particular you find especially accurate in their pronunciation of classical latin?

Cheers, and thanks again for your response.
Sesquipedalian
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:37 am
Location: Australia

Re: Latin Syllabification.

Postby adrianus » Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:19 pm

Salve Sesquipedaliane

Sesquipedalian wrote:If syllables didn’t end in a consonant, wouldn’t this have a pretty big impact on what syllable is heavy or light?

Of course, but some of those contradictions don't. A syllable may be long by position but not longer!
Certum est, at non omnis contradictio quantitatem syllabae mutat, et quid refert si syllaba sit longa positione aut longior!
Sesquipedalian wrote:By the way do you have any recordings yourself in classical latin?

To listen to my MISpronunciations, go to http://www.youtube.com/adrianmallon
Si me malè sonantem auscultes, i ad http://www.youtube.com/adrianmallon
Sesquipedalian wrote:I’ve noticed there’s a few websites around where scholars read various texts; are there any in particular you find especially accurate in their pronunciation of classical latin?

Again I say, be broadminded. // Iterùm tibi dico, pateat animus tuus.
Book of Judges, 12.6 // Liber Iudicum, capitulum duodecimum, versus sex. wrote:interrogabant eum dic ergo sebboleth quod interpretatur spica qui respondebat tebboleth eadem littera spicam exprimere non valens statimque adprehensum iugulabant in ipso Iordanis transitu et ceciderunt in illo tempore de Ephraim quadraginta duo milia.

They then challenged him, "say then sebboleth (shibboleth)", which means a head of corn. He then replied "tebboleth", the same letter (t) not being capable of meaning a head of corn, and immediately they seized him and cut his throat right there in the Jordan Pass and they killed on that occasion 42000 of the Ephraimites.

To hear Lucus pronouncing very nicely, head to http://www.youtube.com/ScorpioMartianus
Ut Lucum benè sonantem auscultes, ad hunc situm progredere.

If you want a lovely Erasmian (in my opinion) pronunciation, visit http://www.yleradio1.fi/nuntii/
Si accentum Erasmianum (meo judicio) et bellum audias, visites situm Nuntiorum Latinorum.

Play the Orberg (Lingua Latina) and Dessard (Le Latin Sans Peine) discs for good, accessible models.
Ut exempla bona et patentia habeas, impelle discos Orbergensis et Dessardi.

Sesquipedalian wrote:‘Never let a syllable end in a consonant if the consonant can possibly be pronounced at the beginning of the next syllable’
Who or where is that exactly in Keil, Sesquipedalian. Just want to read the context.
Quis id dicit vel ubi apud Keil est? Modò contextum investigare volo.

OK, I found it in Servius. Keil, Grammatici Latini, 4.472.20
Licet. Id apud Servium inveni..20
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

Re: Latin Syllabification.

Postby adrianus » Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:16 pm

"Keil, Grammatici Latini, volumen quartum, pagina quadringenti viginti septem, lineae de deviginiti ad triginta quinque, wrote:Quotienscumque quaerimus, quae consonantes in scribendo sibi cohaereant vel cui syllabae inputentur, utrum priori an sequenti, similitudo aliorum nominum hunc solvit errorem. Ut puta si dicamus aspice et dubitemus, utrum s et p dividendae sint consonantes et s danda priori syllabae, p sequenti, intellegimus hoc fieri non posse, sed ambas consonantes sequenti tantum modo dare nos debere, eo quod invenitur sermo qui a duabus istis consonantibus inchoetur, ut spica. Similiter amnis: debemus m et n sequenti syllabae dare in scribendo, quoniam invenitur sermo qui ab his consonantibus inchoetur, ut Mnestheus. Attulit: non possumus duo t sequenti syllabae dare, quia nullus sermo invenitur, qui a duabus t consonantibus inchoetur. Et hoc in ceteris consonantibus observabimus. Plane <scire debemus>, conexiones quod dico consonantium non eas quae Latinis syllabis congruunt, sed etiam quae Graecis, excepta scilicet ea syllaba quae constat de b et d, quae in Latinum sermonem numquam ita transit, ut cohaereat, ut est BDELLA. Quando enim scribimus abditur, non possumus a in una syllaba ponere, et b et d in sequenti.

Whenever we ask which consonants in writing belong together or to which syllable they should be ascribed, whether to the one before or to the one following, the similarity to other words solves this problem. Consider if we were to say "aspice" and we were in doubt whether the consonantes s and p ought to be divided and s given to the prior syllable, p to the following one, we understand that this cannot be done but we have to give both consonantes to the following one only, to the extent that a word is found which by both of those consonantes referred to could be begun, such as "spica"(head of corn). Similarly with amnis: in writing we must give m and n to the following syllable, since a word is found beginning with these consonants, as Mnestheus. It is said that we cannot give two t's to the following syllable because no word is found which begins with double t consonant. And we observe this in other consonants. Clearly <we ought to know> the connections of consonants I'm talking about apply not [just] to Latin syllables but also to Greek, except of course that syllable consisting of b and d, which in Latin never tranfers in that way that it would stick together, as is BDELLA. For when we write "abditur" we cannot put the a in one syllable and the b & d in the following.

Servius doesn't anywhere say a syllable cannot end in a consonant. Clearly it can ("ab-di-tur"). ("mon-strum" NOT "mo-nstrum", but maybe "mon-strum" before "mons-trum", he means). He may even be talking ONLY about cases of uncertainty.
Nullibi dicit Servius syllabam consonante terminari non posse. Clarè potest (sicut "ab-di-tur). Forsitàn hic locus solùm errores spectat.

By saying "Never let a syllable end in a consonant if the consonant can possibly be pronounced at the beginning of the next syllable" you may to be repeating another's opinion*, rather than looking at the original words (or those in Keil, at least).
Hoc in dicendo, forsit tu interpretationem alii repetas*, et directè verba Servi pristina (apud Keil saltem) non consultes.

* http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0fl1xhMush4C&pg=PA281&lpg=PA281&dq=Keil+Never+let+a+syllable+end+in+a+consonant+if+the+consonant+can+possibly+be+pronounced+at+the+beginning+of+the+next+syllable&source=bl&ots=fcEmztk83y&sig=m4BX78ZZhW4QECTiP2qWMIz3pac&hl=en&ei=3VwSTNS4M9H_4AbfitSsCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Keil%20Never%20let%20a%20syllable%20end%20in%20a%20consonant%20if%20the%20consonant%20can%20possibly%20be%20pronounced%20at%20the%20beginning%20of%20the%20next%20syllable&f=false
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

Re: Latin Syllabification.

Postby adrianus » Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:18 pm

Never let a syllable end in a consonant if the consonant can possibly be pronounced at the beginning of the next syllable

On consideration, I admit that is a fair interpretation of the above passage by Servius (leaving out the "never"), but it certainty doesn't mean a syllable can't end in a consonant (your "If syllables didn’t end in a consonant").
Re perspectâ atque cognitâ justa est, fateor, hae interpretatio verborum Servi anglica suprà citata (separatim "nunquàm" ut conditio), at quod syllaba consonante terminari non potest id non significat certé.
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

Re: Latin Syllabification.

Postby Hampie » Fri Jun 11, 2010 7:57 pm

Uhm… What exactly is syllabification and why is it important to acknowledge it? :oops:
Här kan jag i alla fall skriva på svenska, eller hur?
User avatar
Hampie
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:51 pm
Location: Holmia, Suecia

Re: Latin Syllabification.

Postby adrianus » Fri Jun 11, 2010 8:38 pm

Understanding how a Latin word divides into syllables allows you to understand scansion in Latin poetry and accent in pronunciation, by knowing which syllables are long, which short.

Scientia modorum per quos latinè dictiones in syllabas dividuntur sinet ut prosodia accentumque intellegantur. Quae syllabae correptae quae longae sint, ut id deprendatur permittit.
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

Re: Latin Syllabification.

Postby adrianus » Fri Jun 11, 2010 9:47 pm

There are, perhaps, some ambiguities in Servius. For example, he describes (Keil, IV p.424) eight situations giving rise to "common syllables", situations in which the consonant combinations can give either long or short syllables. He classifies m and n as liquids alongside l and r. One situation is a consonant before a liquid can go either to the previous syllable or to the next. So amnis can be either a-mnis or am-nis, in my opinion. Thank goodness, otherwise you just have to look in the Aeneid to say he's wrong about a-mnis unless he claims the a is long by nature. So really, the above passage is just the tail-end of a discussion where lots of examples of "normal" syllable division are described and interesting ways of handling anomalies are demonstrated.

Pauca aliquantulùm ambigua apud Servius reperias. Exempli gratiâ, communes syllabae vocat eas ex eodem ordine consonantium natas quae aut correptae aut longae habeantur. Ut liquidae secus l et r litteras ponit m et n litteras. Consonans ante liquidam (unâ cum septem aliis comparationis generibus) aut priori aut sequenti syllabae data est. (p.424) Quâ re est aut a-mnis aut am-nis. Quod felix est, quià aliter in Aeneide multa exempla reperiuntur quae, ut videtur, sententiam Servi de illâ dictione contradicunt, nisi a longam naturâ esse dicit. Verum dicere, locus suprà citatus justa est pars disputationis quam in paginis praecedentibus iam tractabat et in quibus paginis res difficiles modis attractivis contrahit.
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

Re: Latin Syllabification.

Postby Alatius » Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:17 pm

Wait... I don't have Keil in front of me, but isn't Servius simply talking about how to divide words in writing, such as when the end of the line is reached prematurely and the word needs to be split? Of course one could construct any rules one wish for this, without taking any consideration of metrical syllable quantities. True, syllable quantity is defined by means of "syllabification" as a phonological feature, but that concept is completely unrelated to syllabification in writing.
Alatius
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Upsalia, Suecia

Re: Latin Syllabification.

Postby adrianus » Fri Jun 11, 2010 11:09 pm

Alatius wrote:Wait... I don't have Keil in front of me, but isn't Servius simply talking about how to divide words in writing, such as when the end of the line is reached prematurely and the word needs to be split?

Definitely he's talking about writing, so that saves any apparent contradiction indeed, Alatius. But according to his rules (IV, p.424) amnis can be either a-mnis or am-nis otherwise, I believe.
Rectè dicis. Certum est, de arte scribendi in loco supero tractat. Proinde contradictio quidem dissolvitur, Alati. Secundum autem eius regulas, meo judicio, et a-mnis et am-nis aliàs probè dicitur.

Post scriptum
Reading more carefully, I now see he would never consider n a liquid consonant unless in a Greek name.
Ego accuratiùs legens nunc video is numquam liquidam n per amnis dictionem habeat quià non est dictio nomen Graecum.

Keil, IV, pagina quadringenti viginiti duo, lineae viginti et sex et septem, wrote:Quattuor sunt liquidae, l m n r. Sed frequenter utimur duabus, prima et quarta, raro secunda, tertia nunquam nisi in Graecis nominibus.
There are four liquids, l m n r. But frequently we use two, the first and fourth, rarely the second, never the third unless in Greek names.

And the rule I thought at first applied doesn't apply to m in amnis.
Nec apta prae m in amnis dictione est regula quam primò aptam aestimavi.

Keil, Grammatici Latini, volumen quartum, pagina quadringenti viginta duo, lineae ab decem ad tredecim, wrote:Communes syllabae modis fiunt octo. primus modus est, si correptam vocalem duae consonante sequuntur, quarum prior muta quaepiam est vel f semivocalis et sequens liquida: est enim longa in hoc, 'vasto Cyclopis in antro'; brevis in hoc 'vastosque ab rupe Cyclopas'.

Syllables become common in eight ways. The first way is if two consonants, whose first is any mute [b c d g h k p q t] or a semi-vocalic f and the following is a liquid, follow a short vowel.
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

Re: Latin Syllabification.

Postby Sesquipedalian » Sat Jun 12, 2010 10:11 am

Thanks for those links Adrianus, very helpful. :D

I was thinking of getting the audio for Lingua Latina by Orberg, however some other posts on Textkit were saying his pronunciation can be a bit strange i.e, he uses /v/ instead of /w/ etc?

Ohh I just realised after reading Alatius’s comments I might have been ambiguous. I’m definitely talking about dividing the sounds of the latin words, not the writing. So I was wondering what everyone else does for syllabification. Vox Latina has been very helpful, though I find it extremely in-depth. So I will be having LOTS of questions :?

Do any of the latin dictionaries provide syllabification along with marking the long vowels? What’s considered a ‘good’ dictionary for classical latin?

Lastly (apologies for the long post) am I safe in putting the accent on the first syllable of a latin word? I cant seem to find where Allen talks about disyllables, but a quick google search seems to suggest in two syllable words the accent always goes on the first syllable.
Sesquipedalian
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:37 am
Location: Australia

Re: Latin Syllabification.

Postby Hampie » Sat Jun 12, 2010 1:22 pm

Sesquipedalian wrote:Thanks for those links Adrianus, very helpful. :D

I was thinking of getting the audio for Lingua Latina by Orberg, however some other posts on Textkit were saying his pronunciation can be a bit strange i.e, he uses /v/ instead of /w/ etc?

Ohh I just realised after reading Alatius’s comments I might have been ambiguous. I’m definitely talking about dividing the sounds of the latin words, not the writing. So I was wondering what everyone else does for syllabification. Vox Latina has been very helpful, though I find it extremely in-depth. So I will be having LOTS of questions :?

Do any of the latin dictionaries provide syllabification along with marking the long vowels? What’s considered a ‘good’ dictionary for classical latin?

Lastly (apologies for the long post) am I safe in putting the accent on the first syllable of a latin word? I cant seem to find where Allen talks about disyllables, but a quick google search seems to suggest in two syllable words the accent always goes on the first syllable.


Ørberg uses /v/ and he pronounce final /um/ and /am/ as they’re written, and not nasal. But he has a very pleasant voice! He sounds like a nice old fellow you’d like to listen to telling stories and he does not sound as forced as some people tend to do when reading aloud. I myself always use /w/ and have no problems at all correcting that in my head when I’m reading it myself, just as I have no problem talking to an American who says /wadr/ when I say /wate:/. If you want a perfect restored pronunciation you will probably not be able to model yourself after him; but it probably ease the stress and vowel length learning :3.
Här kan jag i alla fall skriva på svenska, eller hur?
User avatar
Hampie
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:51 pm
Location: Holmia, Suecia

Re: Latin Syllabification.

Postby adrianus » Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:20 am

I think you put that nicely, Hampie.
Personally I think if people said "veh" not "weh" for consonantal u for more than 1500 years that deserves some respect.
Ut reor, id bellè exposuisti, Hampie.
Quod mille quingentos annos et ultrá omnes "veh" non "weh" pro u consonante exprimebant, id meâ parte respicio.


Here are Servius's rules for common syllables, that can be either long or short. Did I make mistakes in translating?
En regulas Servi de syllabis communibus seu mediis quae syllabae vel longas vel correptas esse possunt. Erravine in vertendo?

(Keil, 'Commentaria Servii in Donatum', Grammatici Latini, col. iv, pp. 424, 425, wrote:Communes syllabae modis fiunt octo.
primus modus est, si correptam vocalem duae consonantes sequuntur, quarum prior muta quaepiam est vel f semivocalis et sequens liquida: est enim longa in hoc, 'vasto Cyclopis in antro'; brevis in hoc 'vastosque ab rupe Cyclopas'.
secundus modus est, cum correpta vocalis in unam desinit consonantem sequente h, quae aspirationis est nota: est enim longa in hoc, 'terga fatigamus hasta'; brevis in hoc, 'quisquis honos tumuli'.
tertius modus est, cum correptam vocalem duae consonantes sequuntur, quarum prior s littera est: est enim longa in hoc, 'unde spisssa coma'; brevis in hoc,
ponite: spes sibi quisque, et haec quam angusta videtis.
quartus modus  est, cum correpta vocalis partem terminat orationis, quae in unam desinit consonantem: est enim longa in hoc, nam tibi, Thymbre, caput Euandrius abstulit ensis; brevis in hoc 'hoc caput o cives'. quamquam et si in nullam desinat consonantem, videtur posse exemplo probari: invenies enim apud Virgilium: dona dehinc auro gravia sectoque elephanto. sed sciendum est quod brevis syllaba potest pro brevi et pro longo poni.
quintus modus est, cum diphthongum vocalis sequitur: est enim longa in hoc, 'Musae Aonides'; brevis in hoc, 'insulae Ionio in magno'. sed et hoc tunc contingit, cum nulla consonans intervenit et nudam diphthongon sequitur nuda vocalis.
sextus modus est, cum nudam vocalem vocalis sequitur. est enim longa in hoc, 'o ego infelix'; brevis in hoc, 'sub Ilio alto'.
septimus modo est, cum pronomen c littera terminatum vocalis statim subsequitur: est enim longa in hoc, 'hoc erat alma parens'; brevis in hoc, 'solus hic inflexit sensus'. sed quando c pro duabus consonantibus ponitur, debet cum quadam conlisione proferri.
octavus modus est, cum brevem voaclem sequitur z: est enim longa in hoc , 'Mezenti ducis exuvias'; brevis in hoc, 'nemorosa Zacynthus'.

Syllables become common ["communes" or "mediae" means either long or short] in eight ways. 
The first way is if two consonants, whose first is any mute [b c d g h k p q t] or a semi-vocalic f and the following is a liquid, follow a short vowel.; for it is long in this 'vasto Cyclopis in antro'; short in this 'vastosque ab rupe Cyclopas'. 
The second way is when a short vowel ends in a single consonant with a following h, which is an indication of aspiration: for it is long in this, 'terga fatigamus hasta'; short in this, 'quisquis honos tumuli'. 
The third way is, when two consonants, the first of which is an s, follow a short vowel: for it is long in this, 'unde spissa coma'; short in this, ponite: spes sibi quisque, et haec quam angusta videtis.
The fourth way is, when a short vowel ends part of a speech, ending in a single consonant: for it is long in this, 'nam tibi, Thymbre, caput Euandrius abstulit ensis'; short in this 'hoc caput o cives'. Although if also it should end in no consonant, it [the rule] would seem able to be demonstrated by an example: for you will find in Virgil: dona dehinc auro gravia sectoque elephanto. But it has to be understood that a short syllable can be put for a short or for a long one. 
The fifth way is, when a vowel follows a diphthong: for it is long in this, 'Musae Aonides'; short in this, 'insulae Ionio in magno'. However at that time this also is happening, when no consonant is intervening and a bare vowel is following a bare diphthong. 
The sixth way is, when a vowel follows a bare vowel. for it is long in this, 'o ego infelix'; short in this, 'sub Ilio alto'. 
The seventh way is, when a pronoun ending in c immediately follows after a vowel: for it is long in this, 'hoc erat alma parens'; short in this, 'solus hic inflexit sensus'. But when c stands for two consonants [hocce/hicce?], it should be deferred with a type of clash. 
The eight way is, when z follows a short vowel: for it is long in this, 'Mezenti ducis exuvias'; short in this, 'nemorosa Zacynthus'.
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

Re: Latin Syllabification.

Postby adrianus » Sun Jun 13, 2010 5:42 pm

Sesquipedalian wrote:Lastly (apologies for the long post) am I safe in putting the accent on the first syllable of a latin word? I cant seem to find where Allen talks about disyllables, but a quick google search seems to suggest in two syllable words the accent always goes on the first syllable.

Normally yes in disyllables, but there are some exceptional words, such as illîc, illûc, nostrâs, among others. And I personally follow a practice of accenting last syllables in all adverbs and in some other places, e.g., citò before it's associated word and citó after or at clause-end. You might prefer to stick with Allen on disyllablic stresses (see Vox Latina, pp.86,87) but I don't think he's wholly convincing on this, or he leaves stuff out, at least.

De dictionibus disyllabis, ita ut dicis plerumquè est at exstant exceptiones, ut illîc, ut illûc, ut nostrâs, inter alia. Ego equidem soleo cum adverbiis ac quibus aliis vocabulis accentum ultimam in syllabam ponere, sicut "citò" ante vocabulum ad quod adjungitur, "citó" post vel in clausulae fine. Fortassè praeferes ut quod dicit Allenus de dictionum disyllabarum accentu sequaris (vide in libro eius Vox Latina nomine paginas octoginta et sex et septem), at, verum dicere, is non adusquè persuadet,—saltem sunt res quas omittit.
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: Bing [Bot], Jandar, Lucretius2327 and 70 guests