Classical or Medieval?

[Stancel]

which pronunciation do you prefer? Or do you use features of both pronunciations? or do you make up your own pronunciation system for latin?

[Stancel]

Personally I find the Ecclesiastical / Medieval pronunciation better than the classical.

[Brian]

Ecclesiastical........... definitely

Brian

[fierywrath]

Personally I find the Reconstructed / Classical pronunciation better than the ecclesiastical.

Classical........... definitely

[Celtica]

Classical. Eccleastical pronounciation grates my nerves.

[Stancel]

Classical. Eccleastical pronounciation grates my nerves.

the only part of classical I have a problem with is pronouncing v as a w. for me that's very awkward sounding.

[fierywrath]

Classical. Eccleastical pronounciation grates my nerves.

the only part of classical I have a problem with is pronouncing v as a w. for me that's very awkward sounding.

then stop writing v! do you feel awkward pronouncing wine with a w? i bet you dont! why then would you feel awkward pronouncing vinum with a w which is the very same word?! you are just a big hypocrite! how about were(wolf) and vir? or wall and vallum? wind and ventus? will and volo? some people...

[TADW_Elessar]

Classical. Eccleastical pronounciation grates my nerves.

the only part of classical I have a problem with is pronouncing v as a w. for me that's very awkward sounding.

then stop writing v! do you feel awkward pronouncing wine with a w? i bet you dont! why then would you feel awkward pronouncing vinum with a w which is the very same word?! you are just a big hypocrite! how about were(wolf) and vir? or wall and vallum? wind and ventus? will and volo? some people...

I agree with Stancel... I prefer Classical pronunciation, but I hate reading "w".

I just feel awkward reading "vino", "virile" and "vallo" (which are the very same words indeed! ) with a semivowel, since my mother tongue is Italian

[Lucus Eques]

Classical.

To remedy the 'v' problem, I recommend writing 'u' instead.

After all, Elessar, do you feel uncomfortable saying "Iulia" rather than "Giulia" as it became in Italian?

[Brian]

At school I spoke the classical dialect, but at church it would, of course, be ecclesiastical. To me, the church dialect was intrinsically more pleasant to the ear. Now for those who prefer the classical pronunication....good for you.

But let us not forget.

De gustibus non disputandum (est).

Brian

[fierywrath]

De gustibus non disputandum (est).

whoever said that first was a moron

[Brian]

De gustibus non disputandum (est).

whoever said that first was a moron

Dear Professor Higgins

Here is the completion of the saying, the first part of
which, you "slurred" as moronic.

"De veritate disputandum est."

Brian

[nostos]

De gustibus non disputandum (est).

whoever said that first was a moron

Dear Professor Higgins

Here is the completion of the saying, the first part of
which, you "slurred" as moronic.

"De veritate disputandum est."

Brian

Personally I prefer the classical pronunciation for everything except music, in which the ecclesiastical sounds softer (indeed more musical) to me. Even when singing along though (a nerdy admittance!) I use the classical. My major problem was, at first, separating Latin and Spanish: pronouncing the (non-existent) minuscule ‘v’ as ‘u/w’, always pronouncing ‘c’s and ‘g’s hard, having ‘i’s where ‘j’s should have been, pronouncing the ‘u’ after ‘q’, and separating the function of the macron from the acute accent. But all of these have long since been internalised, and now, to my mind at least, the classical pronunciation is the way Latin sounds.

I’m also trying to get away from the artificial ‘v’s in lowercase and ‘U’s in majuscule, though I can definitely see why grammarians gave consonantal ‘u’s their own letter, and I think they’re good if one has just begun. But, from my perspective, they definitely should be dropped once one has become even semi-comfortable with the language.

[Adelheid]

De gustibus non disputandum (est).

whoever said that first was a moron

Such harsh words..

[Stancel]

Classical. Eccleastical pronounciation grates my nerves.

the only part of classical I have a problem with is pronouncing v as a w. for me that's very awkward sounding.

then stop writing v! do you feel awkward pronouncing wine with a w? i bet you dont! why then would you feel awkward pronouncing vinum with a w which is the very same word?! you are just a big hypocrite! how about were(wolf) and vir? or wall and vallum? wind and ventus? will and volo? some people...

I'm a hypocrite? Get over yourself

Latin does not have a standard pronunciation, so I can pronounce however the hell I damn please. If you want to keep latin as a "living language" you can't have it both ways and keep it from changing. And I see the ecclesiastical pronunciation as the evolution of the Latin system of pronunciation.

[Amadeus]

If you want to keep latin as a "living language" you can't have it both ways and keep it from changing. And I see the ecclesiastical pronunciation as the evolution of the Latin system of pronunciation.

Bravissimo!!! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Two thumbs way up to Ecclesiastical pronounciation (although, in some rare instances, classical seems better: Vercingetorix [vershinyetorics] vs. Uercingetorix [werkinguetorics]).

[Mofmog]

the only part of classical I have a problem with is pronouncing v as a w. for me that's very awkward sounding.

then stop writing v! do you feel awkward pronouncing wine with a w? i bet you dont! why then would you feel awkward pronouncing vinum with a w which is the very same word?! you are just a big hypocrite! how about were(wolf) and vir? or wall and vallum? wind and ventus? will and volo? some people...

I'm a hypocrite? Get over yourself

Latin does not have a standard pronunciation, so I can pronounce however the hell I damn please. If you want to keep latin as a "living language" you can't have it both ways and keep it from changing. And I see the ecclesiastical pronunciation as the evolution of the Latin system of pronunciation.

When you read classical works you use the classical pronounciation.
When you read church, medieval and enlightenment works, use the ecclestial.

How easy!

[Flos Carmeli]

Ecclesiastical.

What could be more pleasing than a Traditional Catholic Mass without making "Novus" sound like "No Wuuuuuss," so that just sounds weird. Ecclesiastical is much more proper! And saints used it!!!

[Lucus Eques]

As regards Ecclesiastical pronunciation: it changed frequently and was different in all the European countries; there was no "standard" as there exsists today. The modern Ecclesiastical pronunciation is hardly an evolution, but a choice: for instance, the Saints of whom we speak would have pronounced 'j' or consonantal 'i' as 'gi' in Italian, for this is how the language evolved in our modern tongues (uidē Iūli?nus, Giuliano, Julius e.g.), as well as "v" at times.

But there are some places where the 'v' never quite caught on: Abruzzo, the Italian region, for instance; 'v' sounds like a faint 'w' there in the dialect; and moreover, many words that start with 'gi' in italian have remained 'i' in Abruzzese. It's a remarkable thing of beauty.

[latinbeginsnow]

i always get the feeling that when someone doesn't pronounce latin with the classical pronuciation that they don't know about it, and are, ahem, an idiot. i know this is far from the truth, but with people my age (21) in college barely knowing more than one language it reminds me of the stupidity of the average person. anyone else get that???

[bellum paxque]

Stupidity is not a synonym for ignorance.

But I do sometimes get that sinking feeling in my stomach when I hear someone say "Eh-chay Romani."

[Brian]

Friends

In necessariis unitas,
in dubiis libertas,
in omnibus caritas.

Brian

[CharlesH]

edited

[Brian]

I am curious about the pronuciation used by some famous natural philosophers (now called scientists). For example, Isaac Newton, what pronunciation would he have used when teaching using his famous Prinicipia Mathematica, which was written in Latin? Is it known??

Brian

[Stancel]

I see good qualities in both actually.

One thing I don't like about Classical is the pronunciation of v as w. But the "ch" pronunciation of c before e, i , ae can be clumsy, as I sometimes find saying it with a k sound much easier

so I'm confused about how to pronounce latin

I'm thinking of just pronouncing it Classical without pronouncing the v as a w

[GlottalGreekGeek]

I am the Glottal Greek Geek, not the Vocal Latin Geek. However, I would imagine that the classical pronunciation is best for classical texts, and appropriate medieval latin pronunciation is best for medieval latin. In essence, the best pronunciation is the one which evidence indicates is closest to the original speaker's pronounciation. For neo-Latin, I think whatever pronunciation which pleases oneself is best.

[darthanakin]

A little OOT but though I would prefer Classical, I would take Ecclesiastical over the 'scientific ' pronunciation any day. Araneae becomes "a-ra-ni", mitochondrion becomes "mai-to-kon-jri-on", though i can tolerate the more common scientific pronunciations of some words like "homo sapiens", it really grates my nerves to speak or hear Latin and Greek words spoken that way.

[Lucus Eques]

It grates my nerves too. Clearly the classical pronounciations of both Latin and Greek terms is necessary.


Stancel, I'd recommend spelling 'v' as 'u', because that's what it actually is, and writing 'v' is completely counterproductive and absolutely unuseful.


Ὦ ΓΓΓ! I like how the forum alters your signature ironically. :-p Speaking of classical languages ... jeez.

[Spyus Carus]

Beyond issues of "taste" preferences, from what I have just been informed, Ecclesiastically-oriented teaching programs do not include macrons to show vowel lengths. This would include teaching programs for children such as Prima Latina/Latina Christiana from Memoria Press.

I just don't understand this approach!

Wouldn't you lose the differention between certain case ending, and cause confusion between words that are spelled the same (save vowel lenghts)?

And just mispronounce many, many words (beyond issues of Ws, Cs, Gs, etc.)?

I'm not sure how they deal with long and short vowels.

Are they ignored?

Are they expecting students to learn vowel lenghts without marking them?

I'm stunned to learn of this...can anyone explain?

[edonnelly]

Are they expecting students to learn vowel lenghts without marking them?

Don't we do this in English? (He took the lead. Get the lead out.)

Didn't the Romans themselves do this? (i.e., not use macrons)


By the way, I'm a strong believer in the classical pronunciation, 'w' and all. In fact, this is how I was taught in Catholic high school 20 years ago.

[GlottalGreekGeek]

Old Romans learned the vowel lengths from ear, not from writing, just as I know the distinction between lead and lead, (or read and read, among other examples) because I knew them by ear first, and learned to write them later.

Not having any native speakers handy, we don't have this luxury.

[edonnelly]

Not having any native speakers handy, we don't have this luxury.

But you can say that about learning any aspect of the language. And what about deaf visitors to the forum? Are you suggesting they cannot comprehend my previous post because they didn't learn English the same way you did?

Regardless of how you learn to distinguish the words, it can readily be done without macrons. Macrons are ok when you are first learning, but they can become a crutch. You don't want to limit yourself to editions of classic authors where someone has added all those extra lines for you. Look at some of the available latin works in Project Gutenberg. Some have html versions with macrons, but most you will find are pure text with no macrons. On the other hand, if you learn to read without macrons, you can always read a text that has them.

[Spyus Carus]

Don't we do this in English? (He took the lead. Get the lead out.)

Well....we do have words that mean different things when pronounced with different vowel lengths.

Which is why we frequenty use phonetic markers (in phonics programs and reading "Primers") when we teach young children how to read and pronounce words properly.

And, as GottalGreekGeek points out, English speaking kids often have the advantage of growing up surrounded by native speakers.

But why in the world would one design a Latin program, aimed at children as young as 5 or 6 years old, and made to be taught not by Latin scholars, but rather by home-schooling parents (most of whom are learning along with their children), that doesn't include marcons? I don't understand the logic.

And I'm still not clear, do they just ignore vowel lengthts, or what???

Anyone?

[Brian]

[quote="Spyus Carus"]Beyond issues of "taste" preferences, from what I have just been informed, Ecclesiastically-oriented teaching programs do not include macrons to show vowel lengths. This would include teaching programs for children such as Prima Latina/Latina Christiana from Memoria Press.

Hello

A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin, by John Collins has all these macrons. I found this book very helpful in my return to the study of Latin. And I certainly did not mind the macrons to help in pronunciation.

Brian

[Lucus Eques]

Not having any native speakers handy, we don't have this luxury.

But you can say that about learning any aspect of the language. And what about deaf visitors to the forum? Are you suggesting they cannot comprehend my previous post because they didn't learn English the same way you did?

If I may reorder your words, my friend, I would say that a deaf person couldn't comprehend the same way we have. They read and understand, but litterally don't have the ear for the language. Equally, those who ignore vowel lengths or proper pronunciation are learning and teaching the language essentially as if they were deaf to it.

I don't agree that macrons are a crutch. Indeed, they are an invaluable test of knowledge of the language in composition; even when I write things where I am incapable of submitting macrons, I write them anyway and then replace them with non-macroned vowels. This exercise connects my knowlege and recollection of the language directly with how it ought to be pronounced, and keeps my spoken pronunciation sharp (especially without many speakers to hear in the course of a day), and my fluency in reading unmacroned poetry quite acute. In fact one of my favorite exercises is to write all the macrons over prose. Doing all this extra work makes reading non-macroned text easier, not harder.

To answer your question, Spye, on vowel lengths in the Church, it would seem that they generally ignore them nowadays. Italians have an advantage in that they (unknowing) tend to place most of the correct vowel lengths naturally. Germans, the French, and others are less fortunate, and it shows in their speech (Ratzinger, Ratzinger).

[edonnelly]

Germans, the French, and others are less fortunate, and it shows in their speech (Ratzinger, Ratzinger).

Hey Lucus,

Is this true of his Latin only, or also of his Italian? I ask because I had heard it said that his Italian was "flawless," but I didn't know if that was true or not. (I hadn't heard anything about his Latin until now).

This exercise connects my knowlege and recollection of the language directly with how it ought to be pronounced, and keeps my spoken pronunciation sharp (especially without many speakers to hear in the course of a day),

Well, not to drag the discussion on too much, but that argument sounds a lot like what I hear from those advocating for j's and v's -- something I know you reject. Macrons, j's and v's were all added later by people trying to improve either our ability to pronounce or comprehend the language and they take us further away from the original source.

Ed

[Amadeus]

The lack of macrons in Ecclesiastic-oriented programs is a methodology flaw. It has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the Church-pronounciation.

Well, not to drag the discussion on too much, but that argument sounds a lot like what I hear from those advocating for j's and v's -- something I know you reject. Macrons, j's and v's were all added later by people trying to improve either our ability to pronounce or comprehend the language and they take us further away from the original source.

Ed

From what I've read, the introduction of j's and v's was neither modern nor pragmatic, but a natural evolution of the language in the middle ages. Here are a couple of links from whee I get my info:

http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/ ... ccent.html
http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/ ... habet.html

But, anyway, as someone said earlier, when you read medieval writings, use the ecclesiastical pronounciation; when reading classical, use the classical pronounciation. There is no sense in mixing them up.

[Bardo de Saldo]

I'm not sure, but I think that long and short vowel lengths in Latin had dissapeared* by the Early Middle Ages. I think so because Latin poetry's meter in the Middle Ages went from being quantitative to being qualitative.

*Enough to ignore them, at least. Italians are not taught about long and short vowels in their language and yet, unless one's a robot, the second 'a' in amare is always going to come out longer than the first one.

I also think that English speakers should worry about their Latin vowels instead of worrying about consonantal u's and i's, for which they have the ready English sounds of 'w' and 'y'. It breaks my heart to hear J.C. being quoted as saying "Weenay, weeday, wykie."

[edonnelly]

Bardo - Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying don't worry about the vowel lengths, I'm just saying that the use of those little lines came much later and aren't present in all the texts you will find, so it's advantageous to be able to read the text without them. The vowel length is there, and should be learned, regardless of whether someone at a later date has annotated the original text with macrons for you.

Amadeus - Just because those letters appeared in the Middle Ages doesn't mean it wasn't pragmatic. Your first link even says that the 'j' is used for "convenience" and that 'u' and 'v' are used in "modern texts." To impose them on classic works is artificial, since they were not originally there, and thus "retrofitting" someone's work with them is analogous to the use of macrons. Why not argue that we should read Cicero in Italian since that is the "natural evolution of the language?"

[OK, I don't really believe Italian is the natural evolution of Latin, but I just wanted to make the point. I'm also not arguing against the use of 'j' or 'v', that's certainly been hashed through here before, I'm just pointing out that it seems inconsistent to be in favor of macrons but against 'j' and 'v.']

[Lucus Eques]

Germans, the French, and others are less fortunate, and it shows in their speech (Ratzinger, Ratzinger).

Hey Lucus,

Is this true of his Latin only, or also of his Italian? I ask because I had heard it said that his Italian was "flawless," but I didn't know if that was true or not. (I hadn't heard anything about his Latin until now).

Hey Ed,

Well, certainly his words are fine, but he has one of the strongest German accents in his Italian that I've heard. It's very cute, actually.

This exercise connects my knowlege and recollection of the language directly with how it ought to be pronounced, and keeps my spoken pronunciation sharp (especially without many speakers to hear in the course of a day),

Well, not to drag the discussion on too much, but that argument sounds a lot like what I hear from those advocating for j's and v's -- something I know you reject. Macrons, j's and v's were all added later by people trying to improve either our ability to pronounce or comprehend the language and they take us further away from the original source.

Ed

Writing 'j' or 'v' though does not change the pronunciation. But if we forget where the long vowels fall, we don't end up pronouncing correctly. Actually, 'j' and 'v' are simply short 'i' and 'u'; if we even mark the extra-short vowels, such as these, we are certain to obtain a very fluid sense of the ancient pronunciation.

I am not against 'j' and 'v' so much as against only 'v'. Having both 'j' and 'v' is, perhaps, archaic, or even unnecessary (and mainly confusing in my opinion), but otherwise it is consistent.

I only think truly fluent masters should fully give up the macrons.