Classical or Medieval?

[Lucus Eques]

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.

Bravissimo.

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."

D'accordo.

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.

My point is that writing and reading constantly with macrons makes their absense easier to adapt to.

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?"

I do not agree with this in principle. Using miniscule and majuscule letters in writing Latin, to say nothing of punctuation and spaces, are also modern conventions that make reading easier. Thus macrons, certainly punctual in nature, have a place among such conventions, in my opinion, until they are no longer needed. Indeed, since writing 'j' and 'v' is the same thing as writing short 'i' and 'u', they are not in principle artificial any more than these other conventions — their fault is in their lack of aesthetic appeal, and the confusion which later arrises, in my opinion.

However, I completely agree with the point of your last sentence. Naturally to read in translation does not offer even half the experience.

[Lucus Eques]

[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.']

Oh cool! we agree. woops.

[Amadeus]

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?"

No, just kidding. I'm not mad.

Granted, the introduction of j's and v's was pragmatic, but not in the sense that they were intended to improve our ability to pronounce the language, as is the case with the macrons. The latter are certainly modern, the former were more of a necessity as latin evolved, and then became conventionalized during the Middle Ages.

But, I totally agree in that there should be no mixing of alphabets. Read Cicero with i's and u's, but read St. Thomas Aquinas with j's and v's.

Btw, I take it that when my source says that u and v are used in modern texts, what is meant is "modern printing of classical latin texts"

I'm just pointing out that it seems inconsistent to be in favor of macrons but against 'j' and 'v.'

If the introduction of macrons is fairly recent, I think one can be against their use in modern compositions (id est, not for learning).

Pax

[Bardo de Saldo]

I don't think I misunderstood you, Ed, my point was that if you go for post-Classical pronunciation you don't have to worry about macrons.

If you all don't mind a little punctiliousness, I don't think that the term Medieval applies to our subject. The Latin pronunciation preserved by the Roman Catholic Church is still being spoken, and we could argue that we know how the Papists speak Latin today, but not how Petrarch spoke it 700 years ago.

Speaking of Papists, is part of being Protestant protesting the Papists' Latin pronunciation?

[Bardo de Saldo]

Classical Romans wrote everything in capital letters, and the shape of their u's looked like this: V. 'I live' was written VIVO (with two u's), so Classical Latin didn't use v's, it used u's with a different shape. When lower case letters were invented, vocalic V's became 'u', and consonantal V's became 'v'. Taking the first syllable of VIVO: VI: Latin 'V' sounds like a short English 'oo' and Latin 'I' sounds like a short English 'ee'; if you say 'oo-ee' fast, making it one syllable, you'll end up saying 'we'.

Of the 5 Latin vowel sounds, 'a', 'e' and 'o' are open vowels, and 'i' and 'u' are closed vowels. You can pronounce diphthongs that start with an open vowel without the help of lips, tongue, teeth or palate, as the English words 'eye' (ai), 'a' (ei) and 'owe' (ou); but you cannot pronounce a diphthong starting with a closed vowel without turning that closed vowel into a semiconsonant: 'you' (iu), 'we' (ui).

[Lucus Eques]

But, I totally agree in that there should be no mixing of alphabets. Read Cicero with i's and u's, but read St. Thomas Aquinas with j's and v's.

Except that St. Thomas Aquinas likely predated their appearance. In that period "j" was frequently used for "Ä«," among other conventions.

Btw, I take it that when my source says that u and v are used in modern texts, what is meant is "modern printing of classical latin texts"

If the introduction of macrons is fairly recent, I think one can be against their use in modern compositions (id est, not for learning).

I don't understand this at all. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Please explain such harsh reasoning that produces such an unhelpful result.

Macrons demonstrate the long vowels, and writing them demonstrates that the writer is not ignorant of them.




Bardo, your reasoning is quite sound, and I agree, but it was also true that their "V"s in handwriting frequently got rounded into this shape: "U" or even this shape: "u." I personally am very fond of the V/u convention as a result.

Very interesting observation on the vowels.

[Episcopus]

Your point above Bardo is, sadly, a valid one. I was in Cambridge a few weeks ago, the greatest classical centre on the face of the earth, and I found that consonantal u was indeed pronounced u (I did not even consider that any one might pronounce it as english v). However in terms of vowels and pronunciation overall there seemed to be no effort it was spoken as if english. And to think, I was insecure, fearing lest my spoken latin should be criticized. It is either that the greatest minds in classics can not be bothered, or that they accept one can never be sure as to exactly how the Romans pronounced their language, and so they see no point in trying. I gave out a good "compónere" though. One Professor actually said that no one knows really what the poets were trying to say - in ambiguous language one can only speculate, and ponder all of the possible interpretations of text. The same might go for pronunciation to some extent. However it is worth noting that I was in Sweden a few weeks ago also, and my guesses as to the true pronunciation of Swedish were quite accurate. There was of course some inaccuracy, but if I had put on my constructed Swedish accent prior to arriving in Sweden, my accent would surely have been far more accurate than one of me not bothering to even try and giving out Anglican dog swedish vowels which will not work if you experiment with words such as "hus" "syster" "själv" or even simple adverbs or demonstratives such as "här" and "det där" respectively.

~E

[Amadeus]

But, I totally agree in that there should be no mixing of alphabets. Read Cicero with i's and u's, but read St. Thomas Aquinas with j's and v's.

Except that St. Thomas Aquinas likely predated their appearance. In that period "j" was frequently used for "Ä«," among other conventions.

I don't follow. In the first sentence you say St. Thomas predated the appearance of j's and v's, and in the second, you say j's were used for i's in that same period. (???)

If the introduction of macrons is fairly recent, I think one can be against their use in modern compositions (id est, not for learning).

I don't understand this at all. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Please explain such harsh reasoning that produces such an unhelpful result.

Macrons demonstrate the long vowels, and writing them demonstrates that the writer is not ignorant of them.

By your logic, every language should have diacritical marks (id est, accents, macros, etcetera), but that is not the case. English does not have accents, yet English-speaking people know where to stress the syllable.

Perhaps my phrasing was wrong (I'm not a native English speaker, you know). What I meant to say was that macrons are helpful, but, IMO, they should be restricted to the learning phases. I see no reason why they should still be used in the production of literary works. Neither classical or medieval authors used them.

[Bardo de Saldo]

You should go to Spain, dear Episcopus; our Latinist research might be siestant, but man: Can we do vowels!

I've been meaning to ask you: What is a Latin Hendecasyllable? Would it use qualitative meter and have the same rules as Petrarch's hendecasyllables? Show us what you got!

[FiliusLunae]

I totally prefer a Classical pronunciation, reconstructed as much as possible.
I seem to side with all the points Lucus makes, in that I like to stress a correct and consistent Latin pronunciation, and we seem to agree on what that should be.
(And Lucus, even though we haven't had to chance to, I'd love to chat with you some time on Skype/MSN).

Oh, yeah, agreeing with Bardo too, Spanish speakers usually keep at least the quality of the Latin vowels. Once I commented here of some recordings I heard on some internet site that were undoubtedly British (indeed they were): MATER and PATER were pronounced "ma-tuh" and "pa-tuh", respectively. I mean... c'mon.. that is probably the extremes of all extremes, but yeah.


~FILIUS

P.S. Recently, somebody pointed out to me the recordings placed on the Wheelock's book site, and I was rather satisfied with them; they truly got somebody learned on the subject who can reproduce a Classical pronunciation.

[Lucus Eques]

But, I totally agree in that there should be no mixing of alphabets. Read Cicero with i's and u's, but read St. Thomas Aquinas with j's and v's.

Except that St. Thomas Aquinas likely predated their appearance. In that period "j" was frequently used for "Ä«," among other conventions.

I don't follow. In the first sentence you say St. Thomas predated the appearance of j's and v's, and in the second, you say j's were used for i's in that same period. (???)

'Twas an 'i' with a macron. Long 'i'.

If the introduction of macrons is fairly recent, I think one can be against their use in modern compositions (id est, not for learning).

I don't understand this at all. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Please explain such harsh reasoning that produces such an unhelpful result.

Macrons demonstrate the long vowels, and writing them demonstrates that the writer is not ignorant of them.

By your logic, every language should have diacritical marks (id est, accents, macros, etcetera), but that is not the case. English does not have accents, yet English-speaking people know where to stress the syllable.[/quote]

But not foreigners who learn our language. (To suggest that we are otherwise with regard to Latin is foolhardy.) It takes hearing the language to learn it and get a feel for it. Absent this advantage, we must take every step to inform our pronunciation as vividly as possibly. Episcopus spoke well on this point.

Perhaps my phrasing was wrong (I'm not a native English speaker, you know). What I meant to say was that macrons are helpful, but, IMO, they should be restricted to the learning phases. I see no reason why they should still be used in the production of literary works. Neither classical or medieval authors used them.

Agreed. In my opinion I define a very long learning phase, to the point of perfect fluency and sonoric mastery of the tongue. Or near to that. Takes a while.

For litterary works? it depends who's learning. For newer students, absolutely. For those who are completely fluent in the manner I described, they would be superfluous.

[zeno]

It is either that the greatest minds in classics can not be bothered, or that they accept one can never be sure as to exactly how the Romans pronounced their language, and so they see no point in trying.

I believe there's a British tradition of pronouncing Latin with English pronunciation rules. My first Latin teacher, an American educated in Germany, loved to harp on this fact. Also, I seem to remember there is an episode in Casanova's memoirs where an Italian at a dinner party asks a visiting Englishman a question in Latin; the Englishman completely fails to understand --or even to recognize it's in Latin-- because the Italian speaks Latin with Italian pronunciation.


What's all the fuss about? I was taught Classical pronunciation but I usually hash it English-wise in front of British professors unless I'm reading poetry, for which the Classical pronunciation is actually demonstrably useful.

[mahound]

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

Well, the same feeling from a portuguese speaker... I'm a layman on latin, but the v/u thing sounds very strange to my ears... maybe there's also the influence of the ecclesiastical latin, that was still taught on schools some years ago . "Curriculum vitae" sounds very awkward in classical pronounciation.

Pedro

[TADW_Elessar]

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

Well, the same feeling from a portuguese speaker... I'm a layman on latin, but the v/u thing sounds very strange to my ears... maybe there's also the influence of the ecclesiastical latin, that was still taught on schools some years ago . "Curriculum vitae" sounds very awkward in classical pronounciation.

Pedro

Interesting to say that I wrote that post almost a year ago. And I almost completely changed my mind now.
That's because I made some research about that hated "u" sound and I discovered that it was most likely pronounced neither as English "wine" nor as Italian "vino".

See this outstanding book about Roman Pronunciation of Latin.

[cantator]

... I made some research about that hated "u" sound and I discovered that it was most likely pronounced neither as English "wine" nor as Italian "vino".

Indeed. To be impolite, pronouncing the U in Latin as though it were English W just sucks.

When I pronounce a word like vita the U sound starts farther back than a W. It sounds more uocalic and less uimpy. English V is of course a fricative and is (IMPO) simply the wrong sound to make for Latin U (in CL pronunciation). Thus, oowee-ta (instead of wee-ta), where the oo diphthong is "unlong". I also pronounce it with a slight glottal stop before vocalizing. The U then sounds much better and has more force before the vowel, pushing it forward in the auditory space.

Perhaps cultures with relatively low ambient noise factors tend to pay more attention to the subtle sounds of things such as language elements ? As Basil Bunting points out, quantity is most certainly present in English, we just don't pay much attention to it.

See this outstanding book about Roman Pronunciation of Latin.

Will do, thanks for the link.

[TADW_Elessar]

The U then sounds much better and has more force before the vowel, pushing it forward in the auditory space

Hence this great sentence from Cicero, Cat. I, 2
"Consul videt; hic tamen vivit. Vivit? [!!] immo vero etiam in senatum venit."

[Lucus Eques]

It is an interesting notion that the semivowel which we represent various'y 'u' and 'v' in Latin would have been more vocalic, as 'u' the vowel, than the consonant 'w'. I once tried this too. And it is possible that a very ancient form of Latin practiced this. However, it contradicts the Roman testimony.

[Amadeus]

... I made some research about that hated "u" sound and I discovered that it was most likely pronounced neither as English "wine" nor as Italian "vino".

Indeed. To be impolite, pronouncing the U in Latin as though it were English W just sucks.

Amadeus omnibus sodalibus s.p.d,

It's been a few days since I las visited the forum (lots and lots of work to do for weeks to come), but I'm glad someon revived this thread. As you all know, my favourite pronunciation is Medieval/Ecclesiastical, but since buying "Roma Aeterna" I've been trying to accustom myself to the classical pronunciation, which I like to call Baba Wawa because of that weird-sounding V. I just can't master it. Sometimes I will pronounce it like a German W (as professor Francis E. Lord seems to suggest), at other times like an English W or a Spanish U. However, if I understood you correctly, care cantator, the latin V should be pronounced like a W but with tighter lips, almost closed? In that case, I can imagine how V turned into a fricative. Or maybe I completely misrepresented what you said?

Well, gotta go. Time is money.

Valete!

[cantator]

... if I understood you correctly, care cantator, the latin V should be pronounced like a W but with tighter lips, almost closed? In that case, I can imagine how V turned into a fricative. Or maybe I completely misrepresented what you said?
Valete!

I've stated my case badly, sorry about that. As I hear it, the problem with English W for Latin U is that the W starts forward, with the lips, where the U begins (as I try to do it, anyway) further back in the throat than if it were English U. As I said, I begin its pronunciation with a slight glottal stop, adding percussive force to its enunciation. The Wawa effect is annoying because it includes no percussive force at all, turning "Veni vidi vici" into an unintentionally comedic phrase.

I'll put up some recordings tomorrow that should clarify all that.

I've been reading Lord's book, it's very interesting. Turns out I may have been correct in wanting to pronounce "miser" as "meezer" (but maybe not). I was reminded that obdura should be pronounced more like opdura, and that ad, apud, and similar words should articulate the d more like a t sound. Alas, it appears I may have to revisit my interpretations and work on a somewhat different pronunciation. Oh well.

[bellum paxque]

Just out of curiosity, how do Lord's conclusions compare with Vox Latina, a considerably more recent book (if I recall correctly)? Are there considerable differences?

Also, I'm not sure that veni vidi vici with the English w is necessarily wimpy. At least, it doesn't sound so to me. I've been reading Latin texts with a w for two years (since I started, basically) and so for me it's perfectly normal. Cf. "Even the winds and the waves obey him." from the gospel: hardly a "wimpy" sentence.

(As a side note, Korean uses w's quite a bit. Interestingly, the writing system literally combines a u with another vowel to indicate the w sound. Now the Korean alphabet was designed in the 1400s by a royal project, but it is considered one of the most elegant and accurate alphabets (technically, more of a syllabary) in the world. In regards to Latin, though, the w is almost identical to English. It just seems like a useful analogy: u before a vowel becomes w, in Korean and, one presumes, in Latin.

David

[vir litterarum]

The Classical pronunciation is the only one that should ever be used unless perhaps you are studying Medieval Latin literature. If you begin to use Medieval pronunciation while scanning poetry, you will convolute the meter and convert the poetry into prose. Don't make Mel Gibson's mistake. (LOL)

[cantator]

Just out of curiosity, how do Lord's conclusions compare with Vox Latina, a considerably more recent book (if I recall correctly)? Are there considerable differences?

I'll know soon, I just ordered a copy from Amazon.

Also, I'm not sure that veni vidi vici with the English w is necessarily wimpy. At least, it doesn't sound so to me. I've been reading Latin texts with a w for two years (since I started, basically) and so for me it's perfectly normal. Cf. "Even the winds and the waves obey him." from the gospel: hardly a "wimpy" sentence.

I think we're coming to the point of "de gustibus". If you like the sound, go for it. And for me, what sounds good in English doesn't recommend the same sound in Latin.

I think we'll just have to agree that certain sounds in Latin have been and will remain problematic, that not even modern phonology can decide those problems in lieu of actual recorded sound.

Ezra Pound once declaimed some Greek verse while in an amphitheater with WB Yeats. He said Yeats was annoyed because he didn't recite English poetry, but Pound noted that English didn't cut the acoustics. When we're discussing pronunciation, the performance location is non-trivial, and we can be reasonably certain that orators chose their words carefully as well for their sonic as their semantic significance. See Dante De Vulgari Eloquio for his views re: the qualities of sounding words. Obviously Dante is considering those qualities in the context of spoken or sung verse, but it's relevant stuff.

Is it possible that the orators and declaimers changed their pronunciations somewhat to accommodate space and acoustics ? Has anyone on Textkit ever recited Latin in what remains of the Foro Romano ?

(As a side note, Korean uses w's quite a bit. Interestingly, the writing system literally combines a u with another vowel to indicate the w sound. Now the Korean alphabet was designed in the 1400s by a royal project, but it is considered one of the most elegant and accurate alphabets (technically, more of a syllabary) in the world. In regards to Latin, though, the w is almost identical to English. It just seems like a useful analogy: u before a vowel becomes w, in Korean and, one presumes, in Latin.

I've been considering how that happens in Latin, and why I object to the straight English W. Hopefully I can explain myself clearly:

U vocalic converts to U consonantal when combined with a following vowel. Consider where in the vocal chamber the U is pronounced: In my part of the US it begins about mid-way between the teeth and the rear of the palate, with the tongue suspended in mid-chamber. When the U glides into a following vowel it acquires consonantal force: OO-AA (vates) is then heard as OO-WAA. There is a tendency in English to discard the starting OO, leaving only the WAA. The consonantal U is now pronounced with little or no part of its vocalic sound remaining. Now, I also note that it possible to pronounce English vocalic U in two distinctly different ways, one in which it begins with a slight contraction of the throat and another in which it starts farther forward, without the glottal start. I believe this distinction is the crux of our difference towards how we pronounce it in Latin. When I pronounce VATES it's more like |OO-WA-TES (where | indicates the slight glottal force) instead of simply WA-TES. In other words, some vocalic force remains. As someone pointed out, this pronunciation was likely more evident in older Latin recitation, and historical phonology appears to support its evolution into the less-vocalic English-like W.

These conclusions are not scholarly. They are my own thoughts and practice, derived from reading Latin verse and prose aloud, with reference to the common guides to pronunciation. I'm sure that Catullus would have considered my attempts barbaric, but with luck we might still have got drunk together.

Btw, did you know that the Koreans also devised one of the handiest music notation systems ? The composer Lou Harrison was fascinated with Oriental musics, he has a number of references to the Korean court styles in his "Music Primer".

[bellum paxque]

I think we're coming to the point of "de gustibus". If you like the sound, go for it. And for me, what sounds good in English doesn't recommend the same sound in Latin.

I'll grant that there's quite a lot of subjectivity involved when we start talking about what sounds best!

Is it possible that the orators and declaimers changed their pronunciations somewhat to accommodate space and acoustics ?

No doubt; and also, we should consider the importance of medium. The very nature of declamation, whether of prose or poetry, requires a clarity of expression and, usually, an exaggeration of pitch and accent. Everyday speech verges on the telescopic, the elliptical, because the point is communication. But at a speech or a poetry reading, half of the pleasure is in the hearing. After all, no one reads a poem for information (even Virgil's Georgics, I'd wager). It seems clear that pronunciation must fit purpose.

These conclusions are not scholarly. They are my own thoughts and practice, derived from reading Latin verse and prose aloud, with reference to the common guides to pronunciation. I'm sure that Catullus would have considered my attempts barbaric, but with luck we might still have got drunk together.

Not scholarly, perhaps, but certainly mature and judicious. I respect them--even if I'm not myself ready to grant that extra vocalic "umph" in the consonantal "u."

Btw, did you know that the Koreans also devised one of the handiest music notation systems ? The composer Lou Harrison was fascinated with Oriental musics, he has a number of references to the Korean court styles in his "Music Primer".

No, but I'm not surprised. Their alphabet is a joy to learn, being almost entirely clear, consistent, and even natural. Maybe the same guys sat down to conjure up a comparable system of music notation?

-David

[Lucus Eques]

As for a Textkitten reading Latin verse in the Roman Forum, that I have done, about a year ago almost. It was a little bit of the Aeneid. Just quietly to myself, but read on that ancient ground none the less.

[Amadeus]

The Classical pronunciation is the only one that should ever be used unless perhaps you are studying Medieval Latin literature. If you begin to use Medieval pronunciation while scanning poetry, you will convolute the meter and convert the poetry into prose. Don't make Mel Gibson's mistake. (LOL)

*Ahem.* You can use either one, as long as you understand that pronunciation in classical poetry is slightly different.

[vir litterarum]

*Ahem.* You can use either one, as long as you understand that pronunciation in classical poetry is slightly different.

I disagree. If a person begins using Medieval pronunciation while reciting Classical Latin poetry, he will destroy some of the assonance and consonance which the poets employed to create a certain effect, thereby vitiating the audible beauty which distinguishes Latin poetry from that of other languages.

[Amadeus]

I disagree. If a person begins using Medieval pronunciation while reciting Classical Latin poetry, he will destroy some of the assonance and consonance which the poets employed to create a certain effect, thereby vitiating the audible beauty which distinguishes Latin poetry from that of other languages.

I agree, and that's why I said, "as long as [one] understands that pronunciation in classical poetry is slightly different".

[bellum paxque]

By the same argument, an American reading English poetry from England(say, Milton, Gray, or Wordsworth) with what comes naturally, an American argument, loses much of its beauty. Possibly this is true, but is this your opinion, virlitterarum? I'm pretty sure that you're interested in English lit, so I wonder if this quandary has ever occurred to you. (I don't see it as a problem, but rather as charming variety.)

-David

[vir litterarum]

I believe that when someone reads poetry from any language, he should endeavor to stray as little as possible from the poet's intent both thematically and rhythmically because poetry is so precisely measured and written in order to produce a certain effect. In the case of English poetry, I believe the American reading it should keep in mind the variations of pronunciation inherent within the poem and strive to retain them. I have just begun studying some of the first ballads written in British literature, and I struggle to do them justice because they were written in Scottish dialect. In spite of this, I wish I could sing them in the manner the poet desired. I am only saying this because we are speaking in reference to poetry. Pronunciation is not nearly so crucial when we are speaking of prose.

[bellum paxque]

I mainly agree with you, but when reading Robert Burns, for instance, I won't try to affect a Scottish accent. Mainly because it would sound atrocious

I tend to think that a language is vigorous enough to support multiple accents without a significant reduction of auditory pleasure (i.e. Classical & Ecclesiastical Latin, British and American English). To be sure, reading poetry with a different accent does depart from the author's intentions, but who knows what new beauties may arise? I'm not convinced that Paradise Lost with the received pronunciation is any better than my own home(ly?) American renderings.

David

[vir litterarum]

I agree with reference to English, but I think there is more leeway in a qualitative system than a quantitative system.

[Lucus Eques]

But Ecclesiastical Latin, ostensibly, does not regard syllable quantity any better than Italian, meaning that all Classical poetry is lost in the Ecclesiastical, to say nothing of consonant differences.

Personally, I believe Shakespeare in the modern British or modern American pronunciations sounds terrible; I only read it in Elizabethan. You don't get any of the jokes otherwise.

[bellum paxque]

If by ecclesiastical we mean the current Catholic pronunciation of Latin based largely on modern Italian, then of course there is little consideration of quantity. But isn't it correct to say that Medieval Latin was aware of quantity, even if its poetry often was more syllabic-accentual? When Erasmus read Vergil, did he use the Roman pronunciation, or his own? Was he threfore ignorant of the beauties of the poetry?

By the way, is the Elizabethan thing a joke? I honestly have no idea how Elizabethan sounds and think it's a bit of a waste to try to figure it out. At least, I've always enjoyed--and understood--Shakespeare the way he's generally performed, that is, modern British English, and sometimes American (i.e., when I'm reading).

David

[Lucus Eques]

If by ecclesiastical we mean the current Catholic pronunciation of Latin based largely on modern Italian,

Based upon modern Italian? This confuses me greatly.

then of course there is little consideration of quantity. But isn't it correct to say that Medieval Latin was aware of quantity, even if its poetry often was more syllabic-accentual?

No, why would it be? Ecclesiastical Latin is the præcursor to Italian and other languages, both of which share a common feature: the elongation of stressed syllables, and the reduction of those not under stress. Although double consonants and vowel qualities remain clear, these are the only notable aspects.

When Erasmus read Vergil, did he use the Roman pronunciation, or his own? Was he threfore ignorant of the beauties of the poetry?

This is a good quæstion, but Erasmus was Renascence and the leader of the rivival.

By the way, is the Elizabethan thing a joke?

Not at all. http://ise.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/literatu ... ation.html

And here: http://ise.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/media/reasons.mp3

Poins: Come, your reason, Jack, your reason.
Falstaff: What, upon compulsion? Zounds, and I were at the strappado or all the racks in the world, I would not tell you upon compulsion. Give you a reason on compulsion? If reasons were as plentiful as blackberries, I would give no man a reason upon compulsion, I.

I honestly have no idea how Elizabethan sounds and think it's a bit of a waste to try to figure it out.

Not at all! As you can hear, it sounds a lot like the Irish accent of English, which makes sense since they have præserved the older dialect.

At least, I've always enjoyed--and understood--Shakespeare the way he's generally performed, that is, modern British English, and sometimes American (i.e., when I'm reading).

Although the American way is infinitely better when it comes to Shakespeare than the British (since our dialect is closer to the original), there is much more to be enjoyed by the Shakespearean pronunciation. Not to do so is directly comparable to reciting, say, Catullus in the ugly Wheelock American "standard" scholastic pronunciation, or in the atrocious Harry Potter fashion of the English, rather than giving the vowels and consonants their true, intended values, just as you do in your beautiful Latin, my good friend.

[bellum paxque]

care Luci,

Thanks for a fascinating response. I hope to respond soon. (But have to get ready for work now. The Donatus recording took all my free time hodierno mane).

David