What is the classical pronunciation of the “eu” in words like “Europa” and “Euboea”? Do the e and the u make a diphthong? Are they pronounced separately? Perhaps it’s a Greek thing? (Which I don’t know yet, so any clues will help immensely.
Also, my ear and mind are at war over magister. According to the rules of accentuation, “gis” is a long syllable; the penult, when long, ought to receive the accent. Yet “MA-gis-ter” sounds better to my ear. Am I missing something here? Should I tell my ear to get over it and recite “ma-GIS-ter” until the new accent sticks?
Second:
The diminuitive ending is no small feature in Latin. Hence, we have paruulus from paruus, filiolus from filius, turgidulus from turgidus (uide Catullus 3). When the nominative form of the original word ends in -er, it seems that the diminuitive often ends in -ellus/a instead of -ulus. Miser becomes misellus, liber becomes libellus.
So here’s my thought. Is it possible that puella is in some way a diminuitive of puer? It does not seem improbable to me that “little boy” might signify “girl,” especially in a society that preferred boys to girls. The diminuitive, furthermore, often signifies fondness, and sometime contempt, both of which might have influenced the coinage. Perhaps there’s little support for the idea, but the parallel between miser → misellus and puer → puella (with a shift in gender, to be sure) is suggestive.
It is indeed a Greek dipthong, but it also occurs in some Latin words (e.g. ‘seu’). It is pronounced as a dipthong - as a single syllable - but like a combination of Latin ‘e’ and Latin ‘u’ (not like English ‘you’)
Also, my ear and mind are at war over > magister> . According to the rules of accentuation, “gis” is a long syllable; the penult, when long, ought to receive the accent. Yet “MA-gis-ter” sounds better to my ear. Am I missing something here? Should I tell my ear to get over it and recite “ma-GIS-ter” until the new accent sticks?
Well, the correct pronunciation is “ma-GIS-ter,” according to the standard rules that you cited. However, who knows if this rule really was applied the same for every word? English ‘master’ comes from French ‘maistre’ which comes from ‘magister’; it seems odd that the accented syllable should drop out. Nevertheless, without further evidence to the contrary, I’d say you should pronounce it "ma-GIS-ter’.
Second> :
The diminuitive ending is no small feature in Latin. Hence, we have > paruulus > from > paruus> , > filiolus > from > filius> , > turgidulus > from > turgidus > (uide Catullus 3). When the nominative form of the original word ends in -er, it seems that the diminuitive often ends in -ellus/a instead of -ulus. > Miser > becomes > misellus> , > liber > becomes > libellus> .
So here’s my thought. Is it possible that > puella > is in some way a diminuitive of > puer> ? It does not seem improbable to me that “little boy” might signify “girl,” especially in a society that preferred boys to girls. The diminuitive, furthermore, often signifies fondness, and sometime contempt, both of which might have influenced the coinage. Perhaps there’s little support for the idea, but the parallel between > miser > → > misellus > and > puer > → > puella > (with a shift in gender, to be sure) is suggestive.
Well, there is a diminuitive of ‘puer’: ‘puellus’ (Meaning ‘little boy’). ‘Puella’ is the feminine version of that, but I doubt there is any deeper meaning to this than ‘filius/filia’ and any other matching pairs. Maybe it does mean something that the standard word for ‘girl’ is a diminuitive, while the standard word for ‘boy’ is not, but I don’t think the formation originated from any sort of identification of a girl as the diminuitive of a boy.
It is indeed a Greek dipthong, but it also occurs in some Latin words (e.g. ‘seu’). It is pronounced as a dipthong - as a single syllable - but like a combination of Latin ‘e’ and Latin ‘u’ (not like English ‘you’)
Ah. This should help a lot. Now if only I had an accurate recording of someone pronouncing this sound!
Nevertheless, without further evidence to the contrary, I’d say you should pronounce it "ma-GIS-ter’.
Sound advice. I’ll take it.
Well, there is a diminuitive of ‘puer’: ‘puellus’ (Meaning ‘little boy’).
I hadn’t seen this form before - thanks for bringing it to my attention.
I went through the same thing. For instance, in English we say “mìnister” when the Latin is minìster. It’s a Germanic thing (and apparently Greek too). French doesn’t help, but Italian does: maèstro. The ‘g’ got absorbed into the ‘i’, and the stress before the ‘st’ remains.
As for “eu” : get Skype, and let me know when you want to hear.
i think it is going down the wrong route to say that either puera or puellus is a necessary step in the formation of the remarkably productive puella. simpler would be to posit the root stem puero- with the common feminine suffix (often found in diminutives) -la. *puerola would then of course undergo syncopation of the o and assimilation of the r to l (as with puellus fr. *puerolos). puera and puellus seem far too peripheral to have been the basis of a derivative form that eclipsed them from the very beginning of our evidence.
it is not true to say that the -us of puerus was lost, for that form did not exist. i do not agree with Lindsay’s introduction of the form as a conjecture at Pl.truc.306, and even it were to have existed it would have had to beeen the form *pueros. for the syncopation of the o, assimilation of -ers to -err and the simplication of the pair of consonants long predated the change of -os/-om to -us/-um. as for socerus at Pl.Men.957 this is a mere back-formation metri causa; cf. socer used in the same play at l.1046.