pronunciation used at LATINUM PODCAST
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
In response to you, Evan, the beauty for me of the Ecclesiastical-Italian and Nuntii Latini models is because they represent (I believe) fine old and established traditions that are more European than national, and they are alive! I have no difficulty in agreeing it's better to recommend the restored classical model because there are special present and future advantages in having a unified standard (quite apart from it's importance for classical studies). However, signing-up to a manifesto that condemned the alternative models as "in error" I couldn't do because that condemnation, to me, seems more greviously in error (ideologically and historically). That was what my beef was about. It's a matter of wording but words aren't trivial.
Evano responsum Adriani. (Just for practice. Happy for corrections.)
Admiror, Evane, modos latine loquendi ut Ecclesiasticum-Italum et quem "Nuntii Latini" voco, quod hi consuetudines vetustas atque probabiles (ut credo) demonstrant, coque sunt consuetudines vivae! Sunt etiam modi proprie europaei, non solum gentiles. Commoditatibus systematis unici praesentibus futurisque numeratis, modus classicus nove correctus satius esse libenter consentio (et disciplinis classicis non minor usus est quem habet, certe). Condicionem autem subscribere quae "errata" modorum aliorum condemnet -- id non possum! Sic facere gravius erratum futurum esse puto, --historice et ideologice dicens (ut mihi videtur). Ecce natura complorationis meae. Res dilectorum verborum est, sed verba pollentissima sunt.
Evano responsum Adriani. (Just for practice. Happy for corrections.)
Admiror, Evane, modos latine loquendi ut Ecclesiasticum-Italum et quem "Nuntii Latini" voco, quod hi consuetudines vetustas atque probabiles (ut credo) demonstrant, coque sunt consuetudines vivae! Sunt etiam modi proprie europaei, non solum gentiles. Commoditatibus systematis unici praesentibus futurisque numeratis, modus classicus nove correctus satius esse libenter consentio (et disciplinis classicis non minor usus est quem habet, certe). Condicionem autem subscribere quae "errata" modorum aliorum condemnet -- id non possum! Sic facere gravius erratum futurum esse puto, --historice et ideologice dicens (ut mihi videtur). Ecce natura complorationis meae. Res dilectorum verborum est, sed verba pollentissima sunt.
Last edited by adrianus on Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: In a van down by the river
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
I don't know who won, or if the last word has been spoken. But the heart of discussion is to open the mind. So the victors will be those who have learned something, you could say. For my part, in the future I will treat the ambition to use classical elision in everyday contemporary speech with more respect.
Nescio quis vicisset, necne verbum ultimum edaretur. Verò, anima disputationis animum aperire est. Dicamus igitur victores esse quiqui non nullum discerent. Meâ parte, curam aliorum elisioni classicâ in sermone hodierno futurò verebor.*
(*deligendo huius verbi facetias non volo )
Nescio quis vicisset, necne verbum ultimum edaretur. Verò, anima disputationis animum aperire est. Dicamus igitur victores esse quiqui non nullum discerent. Meâ parte, curam aliorum elisioni classicâ in sermone hodierno futurò verebor.*
(*deligendo huius verbi facetias non volo )
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 10:10 pm
- Location: San Diego
Nescio; ut mihi videtur, non uteris proba consecutione temporum . Nonne sit melius scribere quid huic similis?Nescio quis vicisset, necne verbum ultimum edaretur.
Nescio nec quis vicerit nec si judicium ultimum datum sit.
Etiam nunc nescio quis vicerit aut quid ultimum verbum sit.
Exemplorum causa alias sententias do
me rogat quid acciderit
quid acciderit scire volo
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
Salve, Kyneto.
Rogavit Amadeus "Who won?" Rogavit Amadeus quis vicisset, nonne?
Apud Allen & Greenough (para 330,331) "Nescio ubi sim, I know not where I am." "...the verb, which in indirect questions is regularly in the Subjunctive"
Apud Gavin Betts (Teach Yourself Latin, 1986, p.171) "I do not know what he is doing can be nescio quid faciat (indirect question) or nescio id quod facit (adjectival clause, lit. that which...)".
The way I translated was "I don't know who won [pluperfect subjunctive because referring to past time], and nor do I know if the last word has been uttered [imperfect subjunctive because referring to the present time --a sentence with 'has' in it]". Is that wrong?
Rogavit Amadeus "Who won?" Rogavit Amadeus quis vicisset, nonne?
Apud Allen & Greenough (para 330,331) "Nescio ubi sim, I know not where I am." "...the verb, which in indirect questions is regularly in the Subjunctive"
Apud Gavin Betts (Teach Yourself Latin, 1986, p.171) "I do not know what he is doing can be nescio quid faciat (indirect question) or nescio id quod facit (adjectival clause, lit. that which...)".
The way I translated was "I don't know who won [pluperfect subjunctive because referring to past time], and nor do I know if the last word has been uttered [imperfect subjunctive because referring to the present time --a sentence with 'has' in it]". Is that wrong?
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 10:10 pm
- Location: San Diego
Somebody correct me if I err.
I still think the phrase "Nescio quis ..." is a set up for an indirect question.
Nescio quis vicerit. I don't know who conquered (I think I said vincerit last time around which is patently wrong).
Niscio quis vincat. I don't know who is winning.
Nescebam quis vinceret. I didn't know who was winning
Nescebam quis vicisset. I didn't know who won.
I still think the phrase "Nescio quis ..." is a set up for an indirect question.
Nescio quis vicerit. I don't know who conquered (I think I said vincerit last time around which is patently wrong).
Niscio quis vincat. I don't know who is winning.
Nescebam quis vinceret. I didn't know who was winning
Nescebam quis vicisset. I didn't know who won.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 10:10 pm
- Location: San Diego
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: In a van down by the river
Guys, guys, don't fight! I was being facetious when I made that remark.
Anywho, in my opinion, "nescio quis vicisset" is to be interpreted as "nescio quis in media pugna vicisset", whereas "nescio quis vicerit" as "nescio quis post pugnam vicerit". Am I wrong?
Vale!
Anywho, in my opinion, "nescio quis vicisset" is to be interpreted as "nescio quis in media pugna vicisset", whereas "nescio quis vicerit" as "nescio quis post pugnam vicerit". Am I wrong?
Vale!
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!
Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
We aren't fighting, Amadeus. I'm just trying to learn. I was uncertain about the grammar here. Three opinions already. [Sorry, two, because Amadeus agrees with Kyneto.] But I have made the mistake. It should be "Nescio quis vicerit, necne verbum ultimum edatur". Kyneto is right. Thanks, K. [As an aside, I don't think you can use "si" to introduce or begin an indirect question.]
Non pugnamus, Amadee! Disco (saltem conor)! Hac de quaestione grammaticae incertus eram. Ecce iam tres sententiae. [Corrigendum: duae, quia Amadeus sententiae Kyneto/Kynetonis assentitur.] Verò peccavisse confiteor. Corrigo "Nescio quis vicerit, necne verbum ultimum edatur." Rectè dicit Kyneto. Gratias ei ago. [Addendum: ut intellego, de obliquis quaestionibus, cum "si" dictione quaestio obliqua introduci vel coeptari numquam licet.]
Non pugnamus, Amadee! Disco (saltem conor)! Hac de quaestione grammaticae incertus eram. Ecce iam tres sententiae. [Corrigendum: duae, quia Amadeus sententiae Kyneto/Kynetonis assentitur.] Verò peccavisse confiteor. Corrigo "Nescio quis vicerit, necne verbum ultimum edatur." Rectè dicit Kyneto. Gratias ei ago. [Addendum: ut intellego, de obliquis quaestionibus, cum "si" dictione quaestio obliqua introduci vel coeptari numquam licet.]
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 10:10 pm
- Location: San Diego
As an aside I have just published an essay on the composition board. I was reluctant to post it there for fear that no one ventures there very often. In any event I would be interested in whether you think I have followed proper sequencing of tenses. Does anyone read the composition board? Seems rather dead down there.
This has been a great topic.
This has been a great topic.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: In a van down by the river
- Lucus Eques
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2037
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
You're right, Lucus. Generally, one says "Hilare erat" (no particular subject -- neter). But, in fact, I'm referring to "adnotatus", which is masculine, as "a funny remark" ["Your last remark, it was funny"]. Are both ways not right?
Rectė dicis, Luce. Quotidianè "Hilare erat" (sine particulare subjecto --neutro). Verò autem, "adnotatus" genus masculinum habet, ergo "adnotatus hilaris". Forsitan utrimque verum est, nonne?
Rectė dicis, Luce. Quotidianè "Hilare erat" (sine particulare subjecto --neutro). Verò autem, "adnotatus" genus masculinum habet, ergo "adnotatus hilaris". Forsitan utrimque verum est, nonne?
Last edited by adrianus on Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
accidental post -- sorry
Perperà m collocavi -- me paenitet
Oops, I looked up "adnotatus" and discovered that, while it is indeed masculine, it's a 4th declension noun, not 2nd. declension! So I should have written "Adnotatu novissimo evenisti" instead of ""Adnotato novissimo evenisti".
Hau! Dictionem "adnotatus" in dictionario spectavi. Cum masculini generis quidem sit, inveni, nomen quaternae et non secundae declinationis est. Ideò, me scripsisse oportuit "adnotatu novissimo evenisti" ("adnotato novissimo evenisti" locó).
Perperà m collocavi -- me paenitet
Oops, I looked up "adnotatus" and discovered that, while it is indeed masculine, it's a 4th declension noun, not 2nd. declension! So I should have written "Adnotatu novissimo evenisti" instead of ""Adnotato novissimo evenisti".
Hau! Dictionem "adnotatus" in dictionario spectavi. Cum masculini generis quidem sit, inveni, nomen quaternae et non secundae declinationis est. Ideò, me scripsisse oportuit "adnotatu novissimo evenisti" ("adnotato novissimo evenisti" locó).
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 10:10 pm
- Location: San Diego
So back to Evan's pronunciation. This will be my last comment on the matter. Somehow or another details often escape me. So as I began to listen to the adler lessons although I was struck by the novel pronunciation of CUI (which evan himself has now clarified) I didn't really notice many other aspects about his pronunciation which have since been established during our discussions as being desirable for those wishing to speak as the ancients did.
Partly as a result of these discussions I have decided to work to try to fully adopt the classical pronunciation and intend on using Evan, whose pronunciation I first questioned, as my model. From listening to the Adler lessons I think I am beginning to imitate the nasalization of the final "m". However, one area that I am unsure about is the question of elision. Please forgive me; I know this was extensively discussed but I am still unsure how and when to apply the rules of elision. If one of you could kindly just very briefly review the principles of elision, I will be forever grateful. Sorry to seem like such an idiot. Like I said, too frequently important information just passes over me. Eventually though I get it.
Partly as a result of these discussions I have decided to work to try to fully adopt the classical pronunciation and intend on using Evan, whose pronunciation I first questioned, as my model. From listening to the Adler lessons I think I am beginning to imitate the nasalization of the final "m". However, one area that I am unsure about is the question of elision. Please forgive me; I know this was extensively discussed but I am still unsure how and when to apply the rules of elision. If one of you could kindly just very briefly review the principles of elision, I will be forever grateful. Sorry to seem like such an idiot. Like I said, too frequently important information just passes over me. Eventually though I get it.
- Lucus Eques
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2037
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
Kyneto,
See, for example, Allen & Greenough on elision. For a really beautiful illustration of elision, listen to Vojin Nedeljkovic at Belgrade University reading Latin poetry.
De elisione, vide, exempli gratiâ, Allen & Greenough. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/pt ... d%3D%23338
Ausculta recitandum cantorum latinorum à Vojin Nedeljkovic universitatis Belgradensis quod elisionem speciosissimè demonstrat. http://dekart.f.bg.ac.yu/~vnedeljk/VV/
Ergo bis erravi, amice. At, certò, nemo talia numerat. Tot peccata depono ut videatur res deploratae esse. Eò tantùm erro, quantùm auxilio tuo credo.
See, for example, Allen & Greenough on elision. For a really beautiful illustration of elision, listen to Vojin Nedeljkovic at Belgrade University reading Latin poetry.
De elisione, vide, exempli gratiâ, Allen & Greenough. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/pt ... d%3D%23338
Ausculta recitandum cantorum latinorum à Vojin Nedeljkovic universitatis Belgradensis quod elisionem speciosissimè demonstrat. http://dekart.f.bg.ac.yu/~vnedeljk/VV/
You were twice wrong, then, Luce. But who's counting, really? I make so many mistakes I should be exhausted, but not too exhausted to rely on your help.Lucus Eques wrote:Ah, gotcha; I was exspecting it to be neuter since it wasn't "adnotatu."
Ergo bis erravi, amice. At, certò, nemo talia numerat. Tot peccata depono ut videatur res deploratae esse. Eò tantùm erro, quantùm auxilio tuo credo.
- Lucus Eques
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2037
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
Hi, Lucus. Well, I do think explaining is silly. Nevertheless, as a practice exercise in Latin that may benefit me more than anyone else (especially if you will help by noting mistakes), I will. I say you made two mistakes (thanks for the "erravisti" correction, by the way) because firstly you suggested "hilaris erat" was a mistake and then, after I had corrected myself about something else, you said you had believed "adnotato" just had to be neuter. [Altering the line to "Adnotato novissimo evenisti. Sanè, hilare erat." to make "hilare" agree with "adnotato" is to make two mistakes: "hilare" will be wrong and "adnotato" will be wrong.] Your saying "gotcha!" seemed to be unfair because I had gotten myself regarding "adnotatu". You sounded like you had just sprung, and I was wanting to say "please stop frightening me by jumping out of bushes".
Salve, Luce care. Quod quaeris me explicare frivolum est, ut opinor. Verumtamen, ut exercitatio in me ostendendo latinè sit, explicabo, et proinde fortasse ego saltem sapientior fiam (maximè cum auxilio tuo), etiamsi nemo alius. Dico bis errares (sincerè corrigendo "erravisti" tibi gratias, incidenter) quod primùm cum "hilaris erat" me erravisse admonuisti. Deinde, post alibi me errorem correxisse, dixisti te dictionem "adnotato" generis neutrius esse credere. In dicendo "te cepi!", te inaequus esse putavi, quia ratione "adnotatu" me ipse captus eram. Mihi videbatur te quasi ad meum salivisse, et tibi sic queritari volebam: "desinas me timere in saliendo ex arbusculis".
Salve, Luce care. Quod quaeris me explicare frivolum est, ut opinor. Verumtamen, ut exercitatio in me ostendendo latinè sit, explicabo, et proinde fortasse ego saltem sapientior fiam (maximè cum auxilio tuo), etiamsi nemo alius. Dico bis errares (sincerè corrigendo "erravisti" tibi gratias, incidenter) quod primùm cum "hilaris erat" me erravisse admonuisti. Deinde, post alibi me errorem correxisse, dixisti te dictionem "adnotato" generis neutrius esse credere. In dicendo "te cepi!", te inaequus esse putavi, quia ratione "adnotatu" me ipse captus eram. Mihi videbatur te quasi ad meum salivisse, et tibi sic queritari volebam: "desinas me timere in saliendo ex arbusculis".
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: In a van down by the river
Quendidil, I believe that he is saying "hocce" (or "hicce"). The simple "hoc" shouldn't have a schwa, however; that's italian, not latin.
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!
Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:19 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
hic haec hoc
The following is simply copied and pasted from Johan Winge's page on Classical Pronunciation:
Hic, haec, hoc...
This common pronoun has a peculiarity similar to the one noted above, for, what in dictionaries (and grammars) are listed as “hīc?, “h?c?, really stands for /hĭcc/, /h?cc/, with long consonant. (Historically, what happened was that the pronoun “hĭce?, neuter nominative “h?cce? (from “h?d?+“ce?), lost the trailing “e?, and the resulting /h?cc/ in the neuter was spelled “hoc?. The consonantal length of “hoc? was then sometimes, but not always, borrowed by “hic?, which originally had a short “c?.)
Note that “hīc? and “h?c?, with long vowels, are the correct pronunciations of the adverb, ‘here’, and the pronoun in the ablative, respectively.
You can find the full discussion here:
http://web.comhem.se/alatius/latin/quantity.html
-Evan.
Hic, haec, hoc...
This common pronoun has a peculiarity similar to the one noted above, for, what in dictionaries (and grammars) are listed as “hīc?, “h?c?, really stands for /hĭcc/, /h?cc/, with long consonant. (Historically, what happened was that the pronoun “hĭce?, neuter nominative “h?cce? (from “h?d?+“ce?), lost the trailing “e?, and the resulting /h?cc/ in the neuter was spelled “hoc?. The consonantal length of “hoc? was then sometimes, but not always, borrowed by “hic?, which originally had a short “c?.)
Note that “hīc? and “h?c?, with long vowels, are the correct pronunciations of the adverb, ‘here’, and the pronoun in the ablative, respectively.
You can find the full discussion here:
http://web.comhem.se/alatius/latin/quantity.html
-Evan.
- Lucus Eques
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2037
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
Exactly what, may I ask, is Italian about a schwa? Do you mean when they can't end words with consonants? Neither can your folk so well, mi querido mexicano. Although you yourself have clearly mastered this, as I hear from your recordings.Amadeus wrote:Quendidil, I believe that he is saying "hocce" (or "hicce"). The simple "hoc" shouldn't have a schwa, however; that's italian, not latin.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: In a van down by the river
I dont' think spanish-speaking people add schwas at the end of words, or at least I'm not aware of it. I do know that, for example, many of my fellow mexicans can't say "Star", they say "Estar", but that is at the beginning of a word. Can you give me an example, Luke?Lucus Eques wrote:Exactly what, may I ask, is Italian about a schwa? Do you mean when they can't end words with consonants? Neither can your folk so well, mi querido mexicano. Although you yourself have clearly mastered this, as I hear from your recordings.
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!
Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
- Lucus Eques
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2037
- Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 12:52 pm
- Location: Pennsylvania
- Contact:
They do, for consonants that don't occur at the end of Spanish words often, like 'k' or 't' — although the issue is probably more common with Italians, mostly that's a stereotype.Amadeus wrote:
I dont' think spanish-speaking people add schwas at the end of words, or at least I'm not aware of it. I do know that, for example, many of my fellow mexicans can't say "Star", they say "Estar", but that is at the beginning of a word. Can you give me an example, Luke?
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: In a van down by the river
Hmmm... as far as I know, neither k nor t are proper Spanish word-endings. They are usually dropped, like in "bufé" instead of "bufet" or "bisté" instead of "bistec". No schwa there. Do you have a more concrete example?Lucus Eques wrote:They do, for consonants that don't occur at the end of Spanish words often, like 'k' or 't' — although the issue is probably more common with Italians, mostly that's a stereotype.
Ok, now listen to this italian fellow speaking latin:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-v1f1AQsdPY&feature=related
Notice he says "estÉ™" and not "est"?
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!
Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:21 am
- Location: Upsalia, Suecia
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:40 pm
- Location: In a van down by the river
Re: hic haec hoc
Salve, Alati!
Is that really you in the Youtube video?! I must say that was quite a show! I thoroughly enjoyed it. Vale!
P.S.: Nice socks
Is that really you in the Youtube video?! I must say that was quite a show! I thoroughly enjoyed it. Vale!
P.S.: Nice socks
Lisa: Relax?! I can't relax! Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God! I'm losing my perspicacity! Aaaaa!
Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
Homer: Well it's always in the last place you look.
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:06 am
- Location: Seattle WA
It is a stereotype, and the Italians unfairly get most of the attention for it, but native speakers of many other languages tend to add these schwas between words to break up some of the more congested consonant clusters that can occur in English when final and initial consonants butt up against each other. Even native speakers have problems with some of them, so don't feel bad! (We sound equally absurd when attempting some of the truly heroic sequences of consonants in German.) What we tend to do is simplify them rather than breaking them up, and this is why it sounds different enough to attract attention. I get the impression that Latin was more permissive in this regard than, well, Italian for example...but maybe there were schwas breaking up some of these clusters that just weren't written? Just an idea.Lucus Eques wrote: — although the issue is probably more common with Italians, mostly that's a stereotype.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:36 pm
- Location: Hafnia, Denmark
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:21 am
- Location: Upsalia, Suecia
Re: hic haec hoc
Haha, yup, it is; glad you liked it. Of course, I would have prefered to wear soleae, as well as a proper (woolen) toga of course, but that will be for a later time.Amadeus wrote:Is that really you in the Youtube video?! I must say that was quite a show! I thoroughly enjoyed it. Vale!
P.S.: Nice socks
The usual Swedish example of consonant clusters is the adjective "västkustskt" (which is an adverb or adjective in the neuter, meaning "belonging to the west coast"). Even better is the (slightly contrived) word "blixtskt" ("having to do with someone named Blixt"): that is six consecutive consonant phonemes at the end of a word! Can German beat that?Arvid wrote:(We sound equally absurd when attempting some of the truly heroic sequences of consonants in German.)
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:19 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
hocce
Salve Johannes.
Verum non "hoc" dico, sed "hocce". Scribit Adler " hic is often increased by the addition of the syllable -ce, as hicce, hocce, hujusce, &c" (pg 37).
Ergone, non 'ante'classical' est ? Sonitus hicce et hocce amo. Appellatio mea, viz. cui, cogito fortisan 'ante-classical' est, qui "quoi" dico.
-Metrodorus.
Verum non "hoc" dico, sed "hocce". Scribit Adler " hic is often increased by the addition of the syllable -ce, as hicce, hocce, hujusce, &c" (pg 37).
Ergone, non 'ante'classical' est ? Sonitus hicce et hocce amo. Appellatio mea, viz. cui, cogito fortisan 'ante-classical' est, qui "quoi" dico.
-Metrodorus.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:29 pm
- Location: The Netherlands
Re: hic haec hoc
The quite common word 'slechtst' (worst) has 5 consonant phonemes (ch being one phoneme); and because in Dutch we write compounds without spaces, the 'worst-writing writer' becomes the "slechtstschrijvende" schrijver.Arvid wrote: The usual Swedish example of consonant clusters is the adjective "västkustskt" (which is an adverb or adjective in the neuter, meaning "belonging to the west coast"). Even better is the (slightly contrived) word "blixtskt" ("having to do with someone named Blixt"): that is six consecutive consonant phonemes at the end of a word! Can German beat that?
Ingrid
quoting from 'Opperlans', a book that plays games with the dutch language.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 11:21 am
- Location: Upsalia, Suecia
Retinēbantur equidem etiam in classicīs temporibus illae f?rmae cum exitū "-ce" scrīptae, ē quibus tamen quaedam, put?, ūsit?ti?rēs sunt; exemplī gr?ti? dēclīn?ti?ne "huiusce" mult? saepius ūsī sunt antīquī scrīpt?rēs, quam ill? "hocce". Utcunque sē rēs habet, n?n reprēnd? tē, quod "hocce" scrīb?s, sed mihī vidēris scrīpt?rī, cuius opera legis, immeritam vetust?tis speciem tribuere, cum eī, quod sine "-ce" scrīptum est, tamen v?ce "-ce" adiungis. Nihil enim impediēbat, quīn ita scrīptūrus fuerit, sī rē vēr? in anim? habuisset "hocce" dīcendum esse.
Certainly these forms with a final "ce" were retained also in classical times. However, some of them were more common than others. For example, I believe that the form "huiusce" is much more commonly used than "hocce". Anyhow, I'm not blaming you for writing "hocce", but it seems to me that you impose an unwaranted archaism unto an author, if you pronounce "ce" at the ends of the pronouns, where none is written. For, if the author had in mind that the older forms should be used, he would surely also have written it that way.
Certainly these forms with a final "ce" were retained also in classical times. However, some of them were more common than others. For example, I believe that the form "huiusce" is much more commonly used than "hocce". Anyhow, I'm not blaming you for writing "hocce", but it seems to me that you impose an unwaranted archaism unto an author, if you pronounce "ce" at the ends of the pronouns, where none is written. For, if the author had in mind that the older forms should be used, he would surely also have written it that way.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:02 pm
- Location: Europe
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:19 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Sound of hoc/hocc/hocce
Johan's point about reading the classical authors using hoc when they write hoc, is a valid one, but in informal quoting of a text in spoken conversation, I think this is less of an issue. As I said, I like the sound of hocce, hicce, etc in spoken informal Latin. I also personally find [hocc] quite hard to say. Until I can do it well enough to make me happy, you will be hearing more of hocce than of hocc from me.
-Evan.
-Evan.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:19 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Latinum Podcast re-organisation
To make the podcast somewhat easier to navigate, I have now placed an index to the podcast on the right hand sidebar, a more satisfactory arrangement than my previous image file, which had no direct links to the pages containing the information.
http://latinum.mypodcast.com
I have also added a similar topic index to the imaginum vocabularium latinum which had become unwieldy, with over 1600 entries.
http://imaginumvocabulariumlatinum.blogspot.com/
-Evan.
http://latinum.mypodcast.com
I have also added a similar topic index to the imaginum vocabularium latinum which had become unwieldy, with over 1600 entries.
http://imaginumvocabulariumlatinum.blogspot.com/
-Evan.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:21 am
- Location: NW Ohio USA
- Contact:
Re: Latinum Podcast re-organisation
Very nice, I like the new look.metrodorus wrote:To make the podcast somewhat easier to navigate, I have now placed an index to the podcast on the right hand sidebar, a more satisfactory arrangement than my previous image file, which had no direct links to the pages containing the information.
http://latinum.mypodcast.com
However, it's "Cantator", not "Cantantor".
Similis sum folio de quo ludunt venti.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:19 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Thanks
Corrections have been made
If you'd like to have a go recording some more Catullus I'd be really keen to fill out the corpus of Catullus readings.
I've uploaded a couple more chapters of Adler today. I'm going under the knife on Wednesday, ENT operation (nothing too serious, though any operation is a bit scary). So, I'll not be recording, I think, for a couple of weeks.
Evan.
If you'd like to have a go recording some more Catullus I'd be really keen to fill out the corpus of Catullus readings.
I've uploaded a couple more chapters of Adler today. I'm going under the knife on Wednesday, ENT operation (nothing too serious, though any operation is a bit scary). So, I'll not be recording, I think, for a couple of weeks.
Evan.