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)
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”.
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
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.
Ahem. You can use either one, as long as you understand that pronunciation in classical poetry is slightly different.
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.
I agree, and that’s why I said, “as long as [one] understands that pronunciation in classical poetry is slightly different”.
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
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.
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
I agree with reference to English, but I think there is more leeway in a qualitative system than a quantitative system.
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.
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
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/literature/pronunciation.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.
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