Consonantal U: V or W ?

Latin Learning Latin
1

I have recently come across a very compelling and rather shocking document on Latin pronunciation, quoting the Latin grammarians themselves, on exactly what the Romans had to say about the sound of consonantal u, which is most often spelled as v in contemporary texts. I have taken great pains to transfer the section dealing with consonantal U in full, with my own BBord italicizations, emphasis, and transliterations to add clarity. Notate: if I make a parenthetical comment, it will appear thus: {*L.E.: (comment)}:

· · ·

U (consonant) or V.

That the letter U performed the office of both vowel and consonant all the grammarians agree, and state the fact in nearly the same terms. Priscian says that they (I and U) seem quite other letters when used as consonants, and that it makes a great difference in which of these ways they are used:

[Keil. v. II. p. 13.] Videntur tamen > I > et > U > cum in consonantes transeunt quantum ad potestatem, quod maximum est in elementis, aliae litterae esse praeter supra dictis; multum enim interest utrum vocales sint an consonantes.

The grammarians also state that this consonant U was represented by the Greek digamma, which the Romans called “vau” also.

Marius Victorinus says:

[I. iii. 44.] Nam littera > U > vocalis est, sicut > A, E, I, O> , sed eadem vicem obtinet consonantis: cujus potestatis notam Graeci habent > V> , nostri “vau” vocant, et alii “digamma”; ea per se scripta non facit syllabam, anteposita autem vocali facit, ut > Vαμαχα, Vεκαεβολος > et > Vελεναε> . Nos vero, qui non habemus hujus vocis nomen aut notam, in ejus locum quotiens una vocalis pluresve junctae unam syllabam faciunt, substituimus > U > litteram.

Now it is contended by some that this “digamma,” or “vau,” was merely taken as a symbol, somewhat arbitrarily perhaps, and that it did not indicate a particular sound, but might stand for anything which the Romans chose to represent by it; and that therefore it gives us no certain indication of what the Latin U consonant was. But we are expressly told that it had the force and sound of the Greek “digamma.”

In Marius Victorinus we find:

[Keil. v. VI. p. 23.] > F > autem apud Aeolis dumtaxat idem valere quod apud
nos “vau” cum pro consonante scribitur, vocarique > [size=134]βαυ

et “digamma.”

Audio?
2

I can’t get tired of this subject. :wink:
All I have to say is that I also cannot believe that consonantal “u” was “v”, simply because this would much easier to explain, and no Roman author (as far as I know) said the lower lips have to touch the upper teeth. Their confusion to explain this mysterious sound is a strong evidence to support that it was not “v”.

I also do not think it was strictly the “w” English sound either (I had already read the text above in “the roman pronunciation”). I believe that the most close we can get to this mysterious sound is a stronger English “w” while blowing some air, making it nearer to F than to V, as you explained (or at least as what I gathered from your explanation).

I’m only stating this because you said “as well as anyone else who has something to say on the subject”, and I’m very eager to know what others have to say about this.

I also wonder what does “vox latina” says on the subject. It is taking so long to get here the book! :slight_smile:

3

Our insatiability is a terribly wondrous sickness. :smiley:

All I have to say is that I also cannot believe that consonantal “u” was “v”, simply because this would much easier to explain, and no Roman author (as far as I know) said the lower lips have to touch the upper teeth. Their confusion to explain this mysterious sound is a strong evidence to support that it was not “v”.

Indeed, that is true. Just as the author of the document noted, that there is no Roman testimony ever that consonantal ‘u’ was pronounced as an English ‘w’.

I also do not think it was strictly the “w” English sound either (I had already read the text above in “the roman pronunciation”). I believe that the most close we can get to this mysterious sound is a stronger English “w” while blowing some air, making it nearer to F than to V, as you explained (or at least as what I gathered from your explanation).

I think you gathered as well as may be possible; the bilabial fricative, especially the voiced variety, is alien to most ears.

I’m only stating this because you said “as well as anyone else who has something to say on the subject”, and I’m very eager to know what others have to say about this.

As am I! And I’m very glad that you responded; indeed, I meant what I said about “anyone else;” I am of the opinion that everyone here has something to contribute. We all have different backgrounds and different fields of study, as well as different linguistic origins; truly, your native language is Portuguese, which offers a very different perspective from that of my English or even my adoptive Italian. Even Britons to Americans to Australians offer something unique according to their own particular backgrounds. And since this document seems to present a solution to, or reignition of, a very serious controversy, I myself value everyone’s opinion, from the master to the novice.

4

This shocking document you link to was printed in 1895. I would like to see a more current study of the subject. Either Allen or Palmer, for example, is going to have more epigraphic evidence to draw on, and will use more modern linguistic methods.

That the ancestor of the western European Romance languages had a voiced bilabial or perhaps labio-dental is not doubted. I’d want to see timelines for the development of these sounds. Lord’s reference to the Greek data seems to be a bit promiscuous with respect to time.

Finally, I don’t know how you’re pronouncing /w/, but the description of both lips protruding describes it perfectly when I enunciate carefully. The lips are noticeably retracted in comparison when pronouncing the voiced bilabial (Sp. medial “b” or “v”).

5

Perfect! Where can we find these studies?

That the ancestor of the western European Romance languages had a voiced bilabial or perhaps labio-dental is not doubted. I’d want to see timelines for the development of these sounds. Lord’s reference to the Greek data seems to be a bit promiscuous with respect to time.

That is true. Though Severus is a bit late concerning the type of Latin in question, Nerva’s brief rulership comes before the end of the first century.

Finally, I don’t know how you’re pronouncing /w/, but the description of both lips protruding describes it perfectly when I enunciate carefully.

Actually, after careful circumspection, I believe that the ‘w’ sounds of Romance languages, and our English, can be quite protruded, certainly when enunciated clearly. After all, a consonantal ‘u’ derives from the making a long ‘u’ sound, which if we emphasize or exaggerate, does produce adequate results.

But that does not explain the “profuse, intent burst” that necessarily must come from the sound. Nor the need for a new letter. Or ovvius. How does one explain those things?

The lips are noticeably retracted in comparison when pronouncing the voiced bilabial (Sp. medial “b” or “v”).

It depends how it is pronounced. Perhaps the Spanish ‘v’ is less projected than I am aware; but if one aspirates the ‘w’ sound (which is in fact what happened to the Romans’ consonantal ‘u’), we arrive at a sound which fits the description of Nigidius Figulus.

And with words like fluvius or, more as the Romans would write, fluuius, I have always found it quite difficult to pronounce this word fluidly without aspirating the consonantal ‘u’ into at least a partial bilabial fricative, and even sonorously preferable to do so.

I would very much like to see what others have found with regard to classical Roman testiment on the subject.

6

Vox Latina, Allen - widely available in used bookstores.
The Latin Language, Palmer - sometimes found in new bookstores, but Amazon certainly has it.

Latin is not my speciality, and I’ve not seen Palmer’s book for at least a decade. But this and his The Greek Language follow the same basic model, so I’m sure he says when certain changes take place.

But that does not explain the “profuse, intent burst” that necessarily must come from the sound. Nor the need for a new letter. Or > ovvius> . How does one explain those things?

No idea. :slight_smile:

And with words like > fluvius > or, more as the Romans would write, > fluuius> , I have always found it quite difficult to pronounce this word fluidly without aspirating the consonantal ‘u’ into at least a partial bilabial fricative, and even sonorously preferable to do so.

Try: fluid.

7

How do you mean?

8

Do you aspirate the transition glide from -u- to -i-?

9

The question is not so much whether Latin u represented a voiced bilabial fricative, but when. Lord is too reticent on points of chronology for his arguments to hold water, at least regarding classical pronunciation. The grammatici latini, writing several hundred years after the fact, aren’t going to do anyone much good.

Nigidius Figulus’ description is impossible to take phonologically, since he lacked a consistent descriptive vocabulary and only dimly apprehended the phonological processes at work (like all ancient grammarians). Consider, for instance, Roman grammarians fumbling to describe the difference between voiced and unvoiced consonants (which fundamental distinction they never grasped).

So Martianus Capella (3.261) is at a loss

B labris per spiritus impetum reclusis edicamus…P labris spiritus erumpit

Nigidius’ description is even more patently suspect because he’s so clearly reaching for a metaphysical point.
profuso intentoque flatu vocis is deliberately ambiguous “a powerful forward impulse of the voice”.

There is quite a bit of evidence that Lord hasn’t touched and which one should go to Palmer for, who concludes that the change is first found in provincial inscriptions in the first century AD but that the original pronunciation could still be heard as late as the fifth century:
(Consentius, Keil V, 395)

V quoque litteram aliqui exilius ecferunt, ut cum dicunt ‘veni’ putes trisyllabum incipere.

The original Greek transcription of u as ου is persuasive enough for me that the normative classical pronunciation of the letter was as a semi-vowel.

10

With this much I readily agree; Priscian ought to be in doubt, though Quintilian is certainly a much more valid source.

Nigidius Figulus’ description is impossible to take phonologically, since he lacked a consistent descriptive vocabulary and only dimly apprehended the phonological processes at work (like all ancient grammarians). Consider, for instance, Roman grammarians fumbling to describe the difference between voiced and unvoiced consonants (which fundamental distinction they never grasped).

That is true; though Lord, the author, makes note of this in the beginning of the document, that despite this peculiar ignorance, the grammarians are surprisingly accurate and detailed in every other respect.

So Martianus Capella (3.261) is at a loss

B labris per spiritus impetum reclusis edicamus…P labris spiritus erumpit

Nigidius’ description is even more patently suspect because he’s so clearly reaching for a metaphysical point.
profuso intentoque flatu vocis > is deliberately ambiguous “a powerful forward impulse of the voice”.

Ah, I see. Which is also possible in any case with a consonantal ‘u’ pronounced as ‘w’.

There is quite a bit of evidence that Lord hasn’t touched and which one should go to Palmer for, who concludes that the change is first found in provincial inscriptions in the first century AD but that the original pronunciation could still be heard as late as the fifth century:
(Consentius, Keil V, 395)

V quoque litteram aliqui exilius ecferunt, ut cum dicunt ‘veni’ putes trisyllabum incipere.

Well, that’s enough for me then; if it can be a trisyllable, there we go.

The original Greek transcription of > u > as ου is persuasive enough for me that the normative classical pronunciation of the letter was as a semi-vowel.

I would like to agree. Though the classical Romans’ desire for a new letter still bothers me. And Nerba makes me wonder.

11

These quotes are wrong. The original text had “V” not “U” which
was not introduced until the tenth century A.D.

Lower case letters were introduced in the eigth century
so for over two centuries only V and v were used for
both consonant and vowel forms

And before this only capital V was used.





Priscian explains more fully:

[Keil. v. II. p. 15.] > U > vero loco consonantis posita eandem prorsus in omnibus vim habuit apud Latinos quam apud Aeolis “digamma.” Unde a plerisque ei nomen hoc datur quod apud Aeolis habuit olim > V > “digamma,” id est “vau,” ab ipsius voce profectum teste Varrone et Didymo, qui id ei nomen esse ostendunt. Pro quo Caesar hanc [digamma rotated 90 degrees] figuram scribi voluit, quod quamvis illi recte visum est tamen consuetude antiqua superavit. Adeo autem hoc verum est quod pro Aeolico “digamma” > V > > U > ponitur.

What then was the sound of this Aeolic “digamma” or [size=134]βαυ

12

jotapianus: I know this may seem a little bit off topic, but it usually isn’t necessary to quote the entirety of a preceding post. Just cite the passage that makes your point and add that. Otherwise, the thread becomes unmanageably long, not to mention tedious to scroll through.

Sincerely,

David

13

You’re right that the original texts made no orthographic distinctions between the two letters. But I don’t see how this point affects the substance of the debate, which concerns only the sounds and not the shape of the letters.

Calling these quotations “wrong” is misguided, unless you mean that the entire practice of normalizing the orthography of Latin texts is distasteful to you (and even then, it wouldn’t be “wrong” as if the custom were capable of being assigned a true or false value).

It is misleading to talk about upper case and lower case letters in Latin palaeography (rather than capitalis, uncialis, minuscule, and all their variants) and it has led you to conclude that for two hundred years both V and v were in use. During the period in question initial letters were often distinguished in size, but this is not the same categorical distinction as between upper and lower case.

14

A new question just occurred to me: what was the classical Roman tendency with “nec” and “ac”? From certain texts I’ve read “atque” and “neque” precede words beginning with ‘i’, such as “atque Iulius,” and never do I recall seeing “ac Iulius,” whereas I have on many occasions seen both “ac” and “nec” before consonantal ‘u’, that is, ‘v’, such as “nec vero.” The rule ought to be ‘ac and nec just before consonants (and usually not ‘h’), atque and neque anywhere,’ no? The same should go for “ex” versus “e.”

This being the case, it would seem, if my experience serves me, that the tendency was to consider consonantal ‘u’, with regard to “nec” and “ac,” a consonant, whereas consonantal ‘i’ was preferred a vowel.

Might this give some credence to the theory that consonantal ‘u’ was more of a consonant than consonantal ‘i’?

15

Really, the above were more like questions than conclusions — is my observation correct, regarding “atque” versus “ac” in front of a word like “ianua” versus a word like “vinum”?

16

Pulled directly from Lewis & Short at Perseus:

nĕ-que or nec (used indifferently before vowels and consonants. The notion that nec in class. prose stands only before consonants is wholly unfounded. Ap. Cic. in the Rep. alone we find nec nineteen times before vowels; viz.: nec accipere, 3, 13, 23: nec alios, 2, 37, 62: nec enim, 1, 24, 38; 6, 25, 27: nec esset, 5, 5, 7: nec ex se, 6, 24, 27:

I. nec id, 1, 1, 1: nec inportatis, 2, 15, 29: nec in, 6, 23, 25: nec inconstantiam, 3, 11, 18: nec injussu, 6, 15, 15: nec ipsius, 1, 26, 41: nec ipsum, 6, 24, 27: nec ulla, 1, 34, 51: nec ullo, 1, 37, 58: nec una, 2, 1, 2: nec hic, 3, 33, 45: nec hominis, 2, 21, 37: nec hunc, 6, 25, 29. Cf. also such passages as neque reliquarum virtutum, nec ipsius rei publicae, Cic. Rep. 1, 26, 41 : dabo tibi testes nec nimis antiquos nec ullo modo barbaros, id. ib. 1, 37, 58 : nec atrocius … neque apertius, id. Tull. 1, 2 : nec homo occidi nec consulto, etc., id. ib. 14, 34 . The true distinction is, that in the form nec the negation is more prominent; in the form neque, the connective force of the particle; cf. Hand, Turs. 4, p. 94 sq.)

In addition, both atque and ac are very rare before a consonantal i, so that does not appear to be a solid foundation. On ac before consonantal u, L&S has this to say:

Before v (not in Cic., only once in Caes. and Sall., but freq. in Liv.): armatos ac victores, Caes. B. G. 1, 40 : inconsulte ac veluti etc., Sall. C. 42, 2 : opera ac vineae, Liv. 21, 7 ; 21, 22; 21, 40; 21, 43.

This thread has been interesting to watch, but I’m afraid I don’t have much to add except my nitpicking :smiling_imp:

17

Ah well, I guess that settles that question. Thanks, Benissime.

Is there any vowel/consonant-specific preceding word which might shed some light on the vowel/consonant nature of ‘v’? It’s possible something similar to the ‘nec/neque’ thought that I had could show us how certain Romans preferred the sonority in this case, and how such preferences changed over time.