Can’t really disagree with anything you say, Alatius, but let me try again to clarify my objection to ‘J’. I totally agree that the use of ‘v’ and ‘i’ alone would most closely follow the classical Latin usage (at least in inscriptions) and would be most ‘genuine’.
My biggest problem again is as a teacher in Britain. The compromise that has been made here is to use ‘u’, ‘v’ and ‘i’. This is common convention on all the examinations, and it provides a common basis for all the students to work from. Consistency is useful in teaching, even though it may not be ideal. In fact, consistency is boring and would result in a hideous vanilla world where everything was the same. Certainly one needs go no further than Latin handwriting or medieval manuscripts to see the wonderful diversity that inconsistent usage provides us.
I can easily admit that any ‘scholarly’ objections to the letter ‘j’ I may have can be classified as pretty weak, and can have many arguments arrayed against them. My foremost argument is as a teacher, and that I just don’t like it!
The letter is completely arbitrary. It may as well have been a z for all the good it does. At least vocalic v (u) has a case for its usage, because phonetically, it’s similar to most languages in europe. The same cannot be said of j in the slightest.
There are no valid or obvious reasons for writing j, as demonstrated by its relative obscurity today. The argument that it acts as a differentiator is a specious one, for the letter only serves to perplex the reader when he does encounter it so infrequently.
De Inutilitate J Litterae
Thesis: inutilis est J littera
Argumentum primum.
I am a teacher and I don’t like it. // Magister sum et J litteram non diligo.
Responsum.
Some do. // Sunt qui diligunt.
Corollarium primum.
My gut tells me it is wrong. // Intestinum mihi dicit eam litteram falsam esse.
Responsum.
This is an argument employing interrogatory natural astrology. What the entrails say is propitious for one need not be so for another. For example, the signs for me say that j is right. // Hoc est argumentum astrologiae naturalae et interrogativae. Auguria intestinorum uni non alii propria sunt. Exempli gratiâ, de j litterâ bona mihi sunt portenta.
Corollarium secundum.
My students’ curriculum does not use it. // Illâ litterâ curriculum discipulorum meorum non utitur.
Responsum.
This is an argument based on necessity. It is very strong because there is no option but to follow the course requirements. // Argumentum necessitatis est quod validissimum est, quià aliter facere quàm desideria curriculi sequi non potest.
Corollarium tertium.
It confuses the students to use books that employ it, and this lack on consistency is bad for learning. // Confundit libros scholasticos quae illam litteram includunt perlegere, quae conflictio processum docendi malè afficit.
Responsum.
Not to use such books removes the difficulty. Being able to use such books, however, could itself be a broader educational gain. // Talibus libris non uti est enodatio. Sensu latiore, eis uti autem commodum processui docendi esse potest.
Scholion.
Most dictionaries do not use it. // Maximum dictionariorum numerum eâ non utuntur.
Responsum.
Some very reputable ones do. // Quaedam bonae famae utuntur
Argumentum secundum.
The Romans didn’t use it so why should we. // Romani eâ non utuntur. Cur enim utamur?
Responsum.
It would help learners in certain sources to distinguish letters that the Romans considered distinct. In dictionaries, for example, just as it is helpful to mark vowel lengths, it is helpful to distinguish i consonant and u consonant. In other places, it is purely a matter of personal choice or historical and pedagogical trends whether to use v and j or not, just as it is in English for international spelling variations generally, that cannot be condemned because they represent differences of taste.
// Tirones juvet quod in quibusdam fontibus litterae distinguantur quas Romani ipsi distinctas habebant. Dictionariis, exempli gratiâ, in quibus duratio vocalium denotatur nonnè juvat i et j consonantes indicari? Aliàs, an v vel j scribatur est dilectus proprium ad omnes vel ad mores historicos peaedagogicosve. Ita est etiam pro orthographiae anglicae inter nationes variationibus,—quod cum de gustibus non disputandum sit facilè accipimus.
Corollarium primum.
By writing as the Romans did in their inscriptions, we are writing more genuine latin. // Sicut Romani in inscriptionibus scribendo latinè veriùs scribimus.
Responsum.
When the Romans were not writing inscriptions were they not writing genuine latin? // Nonnè verum latinum scribebant Romani alia quàm inscriptiones scribentes?
Corollarium secundum.
Those who use it are pedants. // Ineptus litterarum venditator qui eâ utitur.
Responsum.
This is called “poisoning the well”, a sort of argumentum ad hominem. // Hoc corollarium est argumenti ad hominem genus, quod aliter “puteum veneno imbuere” vocatur.
Corollary tertium.
Nonsense like this is something to worry about at University and not before. // Hae fabulae lectionibus in Universitate aptiores sunt, non aliás.
Responsum.
Similar to the previous one (“poisoning the well”). Furthermore, if it were nonsense why would you worry about it at any time or any place. // Simile antecedentis (“puteum veneno imbuere”) est hoc corollarium. Quinimmò si nugas sit, cur unquàm vel alibi res te temptet?
Argumentum tertium
It is not pronounced in Latin as an English j. // Non sonat latinè i consonans sicut j anglicé.
Responsum.
Latin is not English. // Latinum non est Anglicum.
All letters could be said to be arbitrary. Formae omnium litterarum arbitrariae sunt, ut dici potest.
Distinguishing the consonant is essential for the pronunciation of the word it’s in! It affects syllable division. Consonantem distinguere magni momenti est ut vocabulum eam continens rectè enuntietur! Id divisionem vocabuli in syllabas afficit.
I am not perplexed when I see it. Eâ litterâ visâ, confusus non sum.
And therein lies the problem, the phonetics of j are completely different across europe, and so the rationale for using it evaporates. The case for its usage as a differentiator is inherently flawed as the reader still has to associate a unique sound with it (usually), and is therefore no easier than distinguishing vocalic and consonantal i; if anything it makes it more confusing, as the reader will be naturally inclined to pronounce it in their native tongue when they do encounter it, due to its rarity. So although it might happen to agree phonetically with the german j (I couldn’t comment on that), more often than not, it does seem strange or dubious, unlike u which is quite natural for most of europe.
It provides no greater clarity, in fact, quite the opposite, it often obfuscates the issue, firstly due to its obscurity, and secondly due to the phonetic inconsistency across europe of j.
I strongly disagree with the argument that both j and u have equal merit. u is quite phonetically consistent across europe, so its case for inclusion has a greater weight. j really has no redeeming features at all. With that said, I do agree that ideally, v and i should represent both their phonetic variants.
But you just said that the pronunciation in english was irrelevant, and now you yourself are using it as an argument for the restoration of the classic letters.
I completely agree. And of course we look at it from the perspective of our native tongues, which isn’t arrogant or myopic, but completely natural.
You completely miss the point of differentiation, vastor: consonantal i (just as u) affects syllable division and thereby pronunciation. Quod i (sicut u) consonans divisionem vocabuli in syllabas et proindè os afficiat adusquè ignoras, vastor.
You’re not arguing coherently. Why do you now comparing j to u? That’s a non sequitur. You cannot conflate u and v when arguing against the use of j for consonantal i. I could just as easily argue that the letter v should not be used for consonantal u because there are no modern European languages which use the letter v for the same sound that v is often used to represent in classical Latin (i.e. consonantal u), unlike i which is quite natural for most of Europe. But of course that argument would make no sense.
Sure it does. I’d argue it doesn’t provide as great of clarity as distinguishing vocalic and consonantal u, but there is still clarity to be gained by distinguishing vocalic and consonantal i. Nor is there any greater phonogical consistency across Europe for the letter v than for j. In fact, there’s probably less so. Besides, in just about every European language I can think of, v represents a fricative of some sort, but never a labialized velar approximant like Latin’s consonantal u, whereas j actually does represent a palatal approximant like Latin’s consonantal i in many European languages, as e.g. in most of the Germanic languages (though not English), not to mention the International Phonetic Alphabet.
You’re conflating u and v again. Based on your (rather-flimsy) argument of familiarity, we should replace c with k whenever it precedes a front vowel in Latin, because not many (any?) modern European languages have hard c before front vowels.
You misunderstand. He’s not making an argument for the restoration of classical spelling based on the pronunciation of English. He’s using the pronunciation of English as a counterargument to your dismissal of j without even considering that the retention of v is just as much, if not more, at odds with your own reasoning.
As a native English speaker, I would argue that it is indeed myopic to insist that Latin orthography be based as closely as possible on the orthography of one’s native language. Whenever you learn a foreign language you must learn the alphabet and spelling conventions that are natural to that language. Why should this be any different for Latin?
Edit: This was written before I saw Imber Ranae’s reply; hence the duplication of many of the points he is making.
That is an objectively false statement: It serves to clarify when we deal with a consonant, and when we deal with a vowel, which in turn affect syllabification. For example “jam” is one syllable, and “etiam” usually three. If j was used consistently, the student would know that it should not be pronounced with two syllables, for in that case it would be spelled “etjam”. I’m sure there are many other examples.
(I’m afraid you are mixing up u and v, I think. As Imber Ranae explained earlier in the thread, “V” (as in inscriptions) with the cursive form “u” should be regarded as the traditional letter. “U” and “v” are the later inventions. No one is arguing for abolishing u, so it is pointless to defend it. I am comparing j with v, both consonants.) But, it is probably true that the pronunciation of the letter “v” is more consistent in different European languages, than that of “j”. However, it is consistently different from /w/, the classical pronunciation. So, for the individual learner (who, as you mention, look at it from the perspective of their native tongue), I maintain that they are, for the most part, analogous. How is it any different for an English pupil to learn to pronounce “v” in a foreign way (i.e. /w/), than it is to learn to pronounce “j” in a foreign way (i. e. as “y” in “yes” — which conveniently is denoted /j/ in the International Phonetic Alphabet)?
Foremost, I’m arguing for consistency. Some evidently think the English pronunciation matters, so that argument is meant for them. You are free to disregard it. (And for what it is worth, I actually like j.)
Squirrel Nutkin’s punishment for annoying Old Brown Owl with his riddles:
“OLD BROWN carried Nutkin into his house, and held him up by the tail, intending to skin him; but Nutkin pulled so very hard that his tail broke in two, and he dashed up the staircase and escaped out of the attic window.”
Nutkin may have lost his tail but Old Brown gained one. I say, if only j’s tail could be saved!
Fabula de Nuculâ Sciuro Beatricis Potter.
Poenas quas Nucula Sciurus passus est quoniàm aenigmatibus Ululam Vetam vexaverat:
“Ulula Veta in domum suam Nuculam Sciurum portat, et codâ eum attollit pellem degluptura; ita tam fortè autem tractat Nucula ut coda in duas partes frangatur; scalas magnâ celeritate ascendit et per fenestram cenaculariam effugit.”
Nucula codam perdidisset at Ulula Veta acquississet. Ut coda j litterae servetur, dico!
‘j’ ?
Why not use a ‘y’?
At least in English ‘y’ would get the point across a lot better than ‘j’.
‘j’ turns ‘iam’ into a strawberry confection for most students. At least a south American potato-like vegetable sounds more like the actual Latin word (presumably ).
I am not advocating ‘y’, as it is already in use in Latin words elsewhere, but it is certainly more sensible than ‘j’, even if it lacks any scholarly or historical tradition.
And ‘j’ IS arbitrary in a way that other letters are not. Someone wrote in this thread (Adrianus?) that all letters are arbitrary. Well of course that is true to a certain point. We could also argue that all SOUNDS are arbitrary if we reduce it far enough, nad we should just start changing sounds as we feel we want. Octopus no oponger sounds like octopus but is now pronounced as catfish (which itself is now pronounced as grugglebis). The old pronunciation was too arbitrary! But ‘j’ is arbitrary in Latin in a way that most of the other letters are not. It is certainly NOT a Latin letter, and Latin is the language we are teaching.
For most English students in any case ‘j’ is actually much more confusing than ‘i’. Never mind the idea of distinguishing consonants from vowels. Most students will work out that ianua is different from vidit, once you teach them to pronounce ‘i’ as ‘ee’. eeanua is yanua is ianua. janua will come out like January, at least at the beginning.
Now, of course one could also argue that ‘u’ is more useful to English students than ‘v’ by this logic, and also for students of other languages.
uuocat is going to be pronounced as ooOcat, which is essentially wOcat. vocat is going to be pronounced like vocation, or focation to Germans.
Both these arguments have some merit but can also be easily criticised.
I also realise that by advocating for ‘i’ and ‘u’ I am making a historical argument in one instance only and a utilitarian in both.
Again, my preference is ‘i’ ‘u’ and’v’, primarily because it is so well established, and provides consistency for my students. I realise there are many valid arguments against this position. I don’t care enough to get offended!
Lastly, if Adrianus argues against me again I will get him and his little dog too!
I certainly see where you are coming from ptolemyauletes. There is one thing I must object to though: the idea that j is arbitrary. First, it originated as an alternative form of i, and the graphical similarity to i is immediately recognizable to this day. Then, when it started its life as a separate letter, it stood, from the very beginning, for the Latin consonantical i. From Latin, it was adopted for this use in the orthography of almost all Germanic languages and those Slavic languages that use the Latin alphabet. This original, basic, inherent pronunciation was recognized when it it was adopted for this sound in the International Phonetic Alphabet. Of course, in Romance languages, and English due to the influence from French, it often stands for a (af)fricative instead, but this is simply due to the change in pronunciation as languages evolve through the centuries.
When I said that, I was meaning that there is no inherent connection between letters and their sounds—a weak hypothesis once made in earlier days. Maybe with the vaguest exception of o, on the page they don’t look like how they sound or are framed by the mouth! There are though non-arbitrary (if not always wholly clear) internal connections between certain letter forms (I said it, Alatius said it, Lex said it): between i and j arising from their use originally as the same letter with j used to make it stand out by its tail, and between w and v, A and a, Q and q, M and m, M and N, etc. but even here connections can be sufficiently different to give rise to debates about the nature of those connections.
Haec verba contra hanc hypothesem collineabam: nullum contextum (separatim fortassè et tenuisissimè cum o litterâ) inter formas in paginâ et sonos litterarum vel formas labiarum esse. Sunt autem interni contexti non arbitrarii (etiam non semper clari) inter formas quorumdam litterarum (sic ego Alatiusque et Lex diximus)" inter i et j olim eidem litterae servantes ubi coda j litterae oculum attrahit, inter w et u, Q et q, M et m, M et n, et caetera. His autem non satis clari sunt contexti, quod controversiae de eâ naturâ evitentur.
Writing y for consonantal i is not more sensible than writing j. In a clear sense j IS i in latin. The Romans used y in Greek words where earlier they had used u in them (Ennius’s Burrus for Pyrrhus, Cicero, Or. 48, 160), and its sound is distinct from i vowel or i consonant or u vowel or u consonant. Again, why would you cater for English habits as a measure of sensibility in writing Latin?
Y pro i consonanti ante j scribere non sapientius est. Claro sensu j et i eadem littera latinè sunt. Romani olim u tunc y in vocabulis Graecis scribebant (vide Cicero, Or. 48, 160: Ennius Burrum pro Pyrrho scribebat) quòd y littera aliter quàm i vel u consonans vel vocalis sonat. Ita repeto, cur latinè scribendo saniores sunt mores anglici?
Addendum
Maybe you should ask why not write latin phonetically? Fortassè roges cur non phoneticè latinum scribendum sit?
As long as you are chasing my dog the squirrel and I are safe. And you’ll be tied up a long time since I haven’t one! Dum canem meum venaris, tuti ego et sciurus. Et longè satages quòd tale animal non teneo.
Yes, in his grammar Morwood does come off as very self satisfied and annoying. “I am grateful to have banished V…//…it was never there”
GOD DAMN HIM! NOR WERE SPACINGS, PUNCTUATION OR A MYRIAD OF OTHER THINGS THAT MAKE OUR LIFE EASIER, WHY NOT “BANISH” THOSE TOO? Didn’t Claudius attempt to remedy such orthographical ambiguity anyway?
j may have been orthographically and even phonetically derived from consonantal i, but it was still an artificial construction in medieval latin; most likely coming from german use.
I was under the impression that the latin letter v was an indirect derivative of the greek Y (upsilon) without the stem, and obtained through the etruscan alphabet. I also thought that u in latin was a medieval invention.
You could argue that j was added to cater to middle high german. That’s why j makes such little sense to french or english latin students whose fricative j bears no resemblance to the german one. So ptolemyauletes’ suggestion of y can be said to be just as relevant to english as j is to germanic or slavic languages. In the end, j arose because of the sensibilities of medieval latin writers and their preferences for their own native tongue. So in a sense you have just made an argument against the use of it.
I generally agree, but I actually feel it’s infinitely preferable not to distinguish vowels and semi-vowels in one kind of Latin text: poetry. The lack of v’s and j’s allows one to scan words like silua (for silva) and Troia as either di- or trisyllabic, and that is a critical advantage when poets are so fond of using synaeresis and dialysis.
Take Horace’s Ode I.23, a 4th Asclepiad: Vitas hinnuleo me similis, Chloe,
quaerenti pavidam montibus aviis
matrem non sine vano
aurarum et siluae metu.
The last line doesn’t scan if you read it aurarum et silva metu.
The letter j was simply a variant of i in medieval Latin. It didn’t come from German.
The majuscule V was derived ultimately from Upsilon, yes*. The minuscule v was a much later variant of the minuscule u, which was itself merely a variant of V. As for u being a “medieval invention”, by that same token all of our minuscules are medieval inventions. But what of it? To be intellectually consistent in opposing all medievalisms you’d have to stop using lower-case letters altogether when writing Latin. No spaces between words either.
*or rather, more accurately, both V and Upsilon are derived from Semitic waw.
Any proof of this? Regardless, the same argument can be made for v, as it was simply a variant of u throughout the medieval period. It wasn’t until the advent of printing that the two forms came to represent different sounds and became separate letters. See here.
But y is already used in Latin as a vowel. Replacing consonantal i with y would just cause more ambiguity. Replacing it with j doesn’t.
I recommend these books, vastor // Hos libros tibi commendo, vastor
Jean Mallon, L’Écriture Latine (Paris, 1939)
Jean Mallon, Paléographie Romaine (Madrid, 1952)
Bernard Bischoff, Latin Palaeography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages (CUP, 1990)
Most importantly though, make sure to check out the illustrated examples of lettering from the historical documents. Ante omnia autem, litteras textuales è codicibus historicis quae ibi exhibentur benè scrutinare.
).