Latin Syllabification.

Latin Learning Latin
1

Hello all,

I recently picked up a copy of Vox Latina and have been slowly working my way through it. One thing that struck me as odd was that there was no section on syllabification? Or have I missed something?

As I’m interested in the reconstructed classical pronunciation, are there any standardised/accepted rules regarding syllabification? I’ve searched through a few books and websites and the majority of the rules given are consistent with each other, but I’ve found a few rules that were mentioned in one place and not another and vice versa. I also noticed what seems to be a contradiction. So what I’ve done is made a list below, and hopefully someone can tell me if I’ve missed any rules, or whether any of the rules are incorrect.

  1. A word has as many syllables as vowels or diphthongs.

  2. Two contiguous vowels or a vowel and a diphthong are separated:
    dea; de-a, and deae; de-ae.

  3. A single consonant between two vowels goes with the second vowel:
    amīcus; a-mī-cus.

This seems equivalent to: A consonant is pronounced with the vowel that follows it. A-ma-mus

  1. Double consonants are always divided: Mitto; Mit-to.

  2. When two or more consonants stand between two vowels, generally only the last consonant goes with the second vowel: consumptus, con-sump-tus.

  3. However, a stop (p, b, t, d, c, g) plus a liquid (l, r) generally count as a single consonant and go with the following vowel: patrem, pa-trem; castra, cas-tra.

  4. Also counted as single consonants are qu and the aspirates ch, ph, th, which should never be separated in syllabification: architectus, ar-chi-tec-tus, loquacem, lo-qua-cem.

I’m assuming ‘gu’ can also be added to this list?

8 ) When more then two consonants occur together, usually the first consonant goes with the preceding vowel. Monstrum; Mon-strum

  1. Separate compound words into original parts.

There seems to be some contradiction between number 5 and 8. One is saying, if you have three consonants between two vowels, the first consonant goes with the preceding vowel, and the rest go with the second. The other says the reverse; that the last consonant goes with the second vowel and the others go with the first.

Any clarification on this will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance :smiley:

2

No // minimè, “arguo” = “ar-gu-o”

I removed the last bit of what I wrote because I want to think more about your contradiction.
Ultimam partem huius epistulae delevi quià de aenigmate tuo ampliùs cogitare volo.

3

That is true, but not ONLY the first necessarily and others can too, so mons-trum, and not mon-strum.
Rectum est, at id alias consonantes qui sequuntur non repellit, ergo monstrum dictio ut mons-trum non ut mon-strum in syllabas dividitur.

But abstraho = abs-tra-ho because it’s a compound word // sic dividitur quià dictio composita est.
In fact, however, you do more often say “ab-straho”. // Verum dicere, “ab-stra-ho” saepiùs dicitur!

Maybe all (most?) const… words similarly must be considered compounded and divided con-st… // Fortassè eodem modò habendae sunt dictiones (vel plurimae) quae per const- incipiuntur.

I forgot that gu after n (as in lingua) can be added to that list.
Huius oblitus sum: verò gu compar litterarum in dictione (sicut lingua) n litteram sequens in tabulam inserenda est.

This is a can of worms. // Res nimis contorta est.

4

My advice is this, be happy with merely one contradiction, Sesquipedalian. When you look at what the grammarians (in Keil) say it gets really complicated, with a-mnis, a-stla, a-gnus, i-pse, Ae-tna and such like. :smiley:

Meum consilium tibi, Sesquipedaliane, est hoc: contentus esto qui solam unam contradictionem inveneris. Scriptis grammaticorum antiquorum apud Keil lectis, multò major numerus contradictionum invenitur, exempli gratiâ a-mnis, a-stla, a-gnus, i-pse, Ae-tna et cetera talium.

5

I reckon that, if a word can begin with the combination of consonants, then generally that combination can begin a syllable in the middle of a word, but be prepared for wiser, older grammarians to split things according to one of the rules you cite. One does one way, another another. Take diphthongus. I reckon di-phthon-gus or diph-thon-gus are both OK and even …o-ngus is arguable anciently. You should be broadminded in these alternative readings.

Ut puto, si dictio in aliquâ consonantium combinatione incipi potest, tunc mediâ in dictione quae syllaba eâdem combinatione facillimè incipietur. Ad syllabas dividendas secundum quamdam regulam à te citatam accingere. Quisque grammaticus doctus et antiquus eâ parte agere potest. Diphthongum dictionem intuere. Licet, meo judicio, alteruter dividendi modus, di-phthon-gus et diph-thon-gus. Et …o-ngus quidem antiquè defendi posse. De hâc re (lectionum alternatarum), pateat animus tuus.

6

Hi Adrianus,

Thanks so much for clearing that up!

I had a look at Keil and saw some of the examples you mentioned. Very interesting divisions. One of the rules was ‘Never let a syllable end in a consonant if the consonant can possibly be pronounced at the beginning of the next syllable’. This was followed by examples such as ‘a-mnis’ and ‘a-gmen’. It seems strange though. If syllables didn’t end in a consonant, wouldn’t this have a pretty big impact on what syllable is heavy or light?

By the way do you have any recordings yourself in classical latin? I’ve noticed there’s a few websites around where scholars read various texts; are there any in particular you find especially accurate in their pronunciation of classical latin?

Cheers, and thanks again for your response.

7

Salve Sesquipedaliane

Of course, but some of those contradictions don’t. A syllable may be long by position but not longer!
Certum est, at non omnis contradictio quantitatem syllabae mutat, et quid refert si syllaba sit longa positione aut longior!

To listen to my MISpronunciations, go to http://www.youtube.com/adrianmallon
_Si me malè sonantem auscultes, i ad http://www.youtube.com/adrianmallon_

Again I say, be broadminded. // Iterùm tibi dico, pateat animus tuus.

To hear Lucus pronouncing very nicely, head to http://www.youtube.com/ScorpioMartianus
Ut Lucum benè sonantem auscultes, ad hunc situm progredere.

If you want a lovely Erasmian (in my opinion) pronunciation, visit http://www.yleradio1.fi/nuntii/
Si accentum Erasmianum (meo judicio) et bellum audias, visites situm Nuntiorum Latinorum.

Play the Orberg (Lingua Latina) and Dessard (Le Latin Sans Peine) discs for good, accessible models.
Ut exempla bona et patentia habeas, impelle discos Orbergensis et Dessardi.

Who or where is that exactly in Keil, Sesquipedalian. Just want to read the context.
Quis id dicit vel ubi apud Keil est? Modò contextum investigare volo.

OK, I found it in Servius. Keil, Grammatici Latini, 4.472.20
Licet. Id apud Servium inveni..20

8

[quote="“Keil, Grammatici Latini, volumen quartum, pagina quadringenti viginti septem, lineae de deviginiti ad triginta quinque,”]Quotienscumque quaerimus, quae consonantes in scribendo sibi cohaereant vel cui syllabae inputentur, utrum priori an sequenti, similitudo aliorum nominum hunc solvit errorem. Ut puta si dicamus aspice et dubitemus, utrum s et p dividendae sint consonantes et s danda priori syllabae, p sequenti, intellegimus hoc fieri non posse, sed ambas consonantes sequenti tantum modo dare nos debere, eo quod invenitur sermo qui a duabus istis consonantibus inchoetur, ut spica. Similiter amnis: debemus m et n sequenti syllabae dare in scribendo, quoniam invenitur sermo qui ab his consonantibus inchoetur, ut Mnestheus. Attulit: non possumus duo t sequenti syllabae dare, quia nullus sermo invenitur, qui a duabus t consonantibus inchoetur. Et hoc in ceteris consonantibus observabimus. Plane , conexiones quod dico consonantium non eas quae Latinis syllabis congruunt, sed etiam quae Graecis, excepta scilicet ea syllaba quae constat de b et d, quae in Latinum sermonem numquam ita transit, ut cohaereat, ut est BDELLA. Quando enim scribimus abditur, non possumus a in una syllaba ponere, et b et d in sequenti.

Whenever we ask which consonants in writing belong together or to which syllable they should be ascribed, whether to the one before or to the one following, the similarity to other words solves this problem. Consider if we were to say “aspice” and we were in doubt whether the consonantes s and p ought to be divided and s given to the prior syllable, p to the following one, we understand that this cannot be done but we have to give both consonantes to the following one only, to the extent that a word is found which by both of those consonantes referred to could be begun, such as “spica”(head of corn). Similarly with amnis: in writing we must give m and n to the following syllable, since a word is found beginning with these consonants, as Mnestheus. It is said that we cannot give two t’s to the following syllable because no word is found which begins with double t consonant. And we observe this in other consonants. Clearly the connections of consonants I’m talking about apply not [just] to Latin syllables but also to Greek, except of course that syllable consisting of b and d, which in Latin never tranfers in that way that it would stick together, as is BDELLA. For when we write “abditur” we cannot put the a in one syllable and the b & d in the following.[/quote]
Servius doesn’t anywhere say a syllable cannot end in a consonant. Clearly it can (“ab-di-tur”). (“mon-strum” NOT “mo-nstrum”, but maybe “mon-strum” before “mons-trum”, he means). He may even be talking ONLY about cases of uncertainty.
Nullibi dicit Servius syllabam consonante terminari non posse. Clarè potest (sicut "ab-di-tur). Forsitàn hic locus solùm errores spectat.

By saying “Never let a syllable end in a consonant if the consonant can possibly be pronounced at the beginning of the next syllable” you may to be repeating another’s opinion*, rather than looking at the original words (or those in Keil, at least).
Hoc in dicendo, forsit tu interpretationem alii repetas*, et directè verba Servi pristina (apud Keil saltem) non consultes.

9

Never let a syllable end in a consonant if the consonant can possibly be pronounced at the beginning of the next syllable

On consideration, I admit that is a fair interpretation of the above passage by Servius (leaving out the “never”), but it certainty doesn’t mean a syllable can’t end in a consonant (your “If syllables didn’t end in a consonant”).
Re perspectâ atque cognitâ justa est, fateor, hae interpretatio verborum Servi anglica suprà citata (separatim “nunquàm” ut conditio), at quod syllaba consonante terminari non potest id non significat certé.

10

Uhm… What exactly is syllabification and why is it important to acknowledge it? :blush:

11

Understanding how a Latin word divides into syllables allows you to understand scansion in Latin poetry and accent in pronunciation, by knowing which syllables are long, which short.

Scientia modorum per quos latinè dictiones in syllabas dividuntur sinet ut prosodia accentumque intellegantur. Quae syllabae correptae quae longae sint, ut id deprendatur permittit.

12

There are, perhaps, some ambiguities in Servius. For example, he describes (Keil, IV p.424) eight situations giving rise to “common syllables”, situations in which the consonant combinations can give either long or short syllables. He classifies m and n as liquids alongside l and r. One situation is a consonant before a liquid can go either to the previous syllable or to the next. So amnis can be either a-mnis or am-nis, in my opinion. Thank goodness, otherwise you just have to look in the Aeneid to say he’s wrong about a-mnis unless he claims the a is long by nature. So really, the above passage is just the tail-end of a discussion where lots of examples of “normal” syllable division are described and interesting ways of handling anomalies are demonstrated.

Pauca aliquantulùm ambigua apud Servius reperias. Exempli gratiâ, communes syllabae vocat eas ex eodem ordine consonantium natas quae aut correptae aut longae habeantur. Ut liquidae secus l et r litteras ponit m et n litteras. Consonans ante liquidam (unâ cum septem aliis comparationis generibus) aut priori aut sequenti syllabae data est. (p.424) Quâ re est aut a-mnis aut am-nis. Quod felix est, quià aliter in Aeneide multa exempla reperiuntur quae, ut videtur, sententiam Servi de illâ dictione contradicunt, nisi a longam naturâ esse dicit. Verum dicere, locus suprà citatus justa est pars disputationis quam in paginis praecedentibus iam tractabat et in quibus paginis res difficiles modis attractivis contrahit.

13

Wait… I don’t have Keil in front of me, but isn’t Servius simply talking about how to divide words in writing, such as when the end of the line is reached prematurely and the word needs to be split? Of course one could construct any rules one wish for this, without taking any consideration of metrical syllable quantities. True, syllable quantity is defined by means of “syllabification” as a phonological feature, but that concept is completely unrelated to syllabification in writing.

14

Definitely he’s talking about writing, so that saves any apparent contradiction indeed, Alatius. But according to his rules (IV, p.424) amnis can be either a-mnis or am-nis otherwise, I believe.
Rectè dicis. Certum est, de arte scribendi in loco supero tractat. Proinde contradictio quidem dissolvitur, Alati. Secundum autem eius regulas, meo judicio, et a-mnis et am-nis aliàs probè dicitur.

Post scriptum
Reading more carefully, I now see he would never consider n a liquid consonant unless in a Greek name.
Ego accuratiùs legens nunc video is numquam liquidam n per amnis dictionem habeat quià non est dictio nomen Graecum.

And the rule I thought at first applied doesn’t apply to m in amnis.
Nec apta prae m in amnis dictione est regula quam primò aptam aestimavi.

15

Thanks for those links Adrianus, very helpful. :smiley:

I was thinking of getting the audio for Lingua Latina by Orberg, however some other posts on Textkit were saying his pronunciation can be a bit strange i.e, he uses /v/ instead of /w/ etc?

Ohh I just realised after reading Alatius’s comments I might have been ambiguous. I’m definitely talking about dividing the sounds of the latin words, not the writing. So I was wondering what everyone else does for syllabification. Vox Latina has been very helpful, though I find it extremely in-depth. So I will be having LOTS of questions :confused:

Do any of the latin dictionaries provide syllabification along with marking the long vowels? What’s considered a ‘good’ dictionary for classical latin?

Lastly (apologies for the long post) am I safe in putting the accent on the first syllable of a latin word? I cant seem to find where Allen talks about disyllables, but a quick google search seems to suggest in two syllable words the accent always goes on the first syllable.

16

Ørberg uses /v/ and he pronounce final /um/ and /am/ as they’re written, and not nasal. But he has a very pleasant voice! He sounds like a nice old fellow you’d like to listen to telling stories and he does not sound as forced as some people tend to do when reading aloud. I myself always use /w/ and have no problems at all correcting that in my head when I’m reading it myself, just as I have no problem talking to an American who says /wadr/ when I say /wate:/. If you want a perfect restored pronunciation you will probably not be able to model yourself after him; but it probably ease the stress and vowel length learning :3.

17

I think you put that nicely, Hampie.
Personally I think if people said “veh” not “weh” for consonantal u for more than 1500 years that deserves some respect.
Ut reor, id bellè exposuisti, Hampie.
Quod mille quingentos annos et ultrá omnes “veh” non “weh” pro u consonante exprimebant, id meâ parte respicio.

Here are Servius’s rules for common syllables, that can be either long or short. Did I make mistakes in translating?
En regulas Servi de syllabis communibus seu mediis quae syllabae vel longas vel correptas esse possunt. Erravine in vertendo?

18

Normally yes in disyllables, but there are some exceptional words, such as illîc, illûc, nostrâs, among others. And I personally follow a practice of accenting last syllables in all adverbs and in some other places, e.g., citò before it’s associated word and citó after or at clause-end. You might prefer to stick with Allen on disyllablic stresses (see Vox Latina, pp.86,87) but I don’t think he’s wholly convincing on this, or he leaves stuff out, at least.

De dictionibus disyllabis, ita ut dicis plerumquè est at exstant exceptiones, ut illîc, ut illûc, ut nostrâs, inter alia. Ego equidem soleo cum adverbiis ac quibus aliis vocabulis accentum ultimam in syllabam ponere, sicut “citò” ante vocabulum ad quod adjungitur, “citó” post vel in clausulae fine. Fortassè praeferes ut quod dicit Allenus de dictionum disyllabarum accentu sequaris (vide in libro eius Vox Latina nomine paginas octoginta et sex et septem), at, verum dicere, is non adusquè persuadet,—saltem sunt res quas omittit.