Ok…I’ve read the first chapter in D’Ooge, and I have a question about the vowel O and U in both long and short varieties.
When you pronounce these long and short is there a noticable difference?
The examples D’Ooge gives to me don’t sound very different. The only difference that I can tell is that with short O and U I proncounce the vowel a little farther back in my throat. Is this right??
Thanks for any help.
I will quote from this compilation:
O (long) will give the “tragic sound” through rounded opening, with lips protruded, the tongue pendulous in the roof of the mouth:
[Id. ib. vi. 9.] O longum autem, protrusis labiis rictu tereti, lingua
arcu oris pendula, sonum tragicum dabit.U is uttered with the lips protruding and approaching each other, like the Greek ou:
[Id. ib. vi. 10.] U litteram quotiens enuntiamus, productis et coeuntibus labris efferemus… quam nisi per ou conjunctam Graeci scribere ac pronuntiare non possunt.
As you can see, this is what some Romans had to say on the subject.
When you pronounce these long and short is there a noticable difference?
It depends on how you mean. If you’re asking is there a noticeable difference between ‘o’ and ‘u’, the answer is, most definitely. The Greek vowel system, with which you are naturally quite familiar, is rather unfamiliar to the pattern of most Indo-European languages. The sound of ‘omega’ for example is a sound very much in between Latin ‘o’ and ‘u’. To help distinguish, I would recommend protruding your lips with great exaggeration for the ‘u’, while the ‘o’ is much more open (akin to omicron more than omega, even in long form). Remember to keep the tongue relatively high in the mouth, for this will change the sound drastically for the better. If you are very familiar with Italian pronunciation or know anyone who is, get them to sound the vowels for you (ideally they should be from Italy, since most English speakers usually just can’t get it right).
As for the difference between short and long vowels, the Romans said that there was no fundamental difference in quality between the short and long versions of ‘a’, ‘i’, and ‘u’:
[Pompei. Comm. ad Donat. Keil. v. V. p. 101.] De istis quinque
litteris tres sunt, quae sive breves sive longae ejusdemmodi sunt, A, I,
U: similiter habent sive longae sive breves.But two (E, O) change their quality:
[Id. ib.] O vero et E non sonant breves. E aliter longa aliter brevis sonat. Dicit ita Terentianus (hoc dixit) 'Quotienscumque E longam volumus proferri, vicina sit ad I > litteram.’ Ipse sonus sic debet sonare, quomodo sonat I (i without macron to show short) littera. Quando dicis > evitat> , vicina debet esse, sic pressa, sic angusta, ut vicina sit ad I litteram. Quando vis dicere brevem e simpliciter sonat. O longa sit an brevis. Si longa est, debet sonus ipse intra palatum sonare, ut si dices > orator> , quasi intra sonat, intra palatum. Si brevis est debet primis labris sonare, quasi extremis labris, ut puta sic dices > obit> . Habes istam regulam expressam in Terentiano. Quando vis exprimere quia brevis est, primis labris sonat; quando exprimis longam, intra palatum sonat.
[Ars Gram. Mar. Vict. de Orthog. et de Metr. Rat., I. vi. 9.] O qui
correptum enuntiat, nec magno hiatu labra reserabit, et retrorsum actam
linguam tenebit.
It would thus seem that the long E of the Latin in its prolongation
draws into the I sound, somewhat as if I were subjoined, as in the
English > vein > or Italian > fedele.
Again, this is entirely consistent with Italian pronunciation. As for short ‘o’, the best way of achieving it is bringing it forward in the mouth, allowing it to be more open.
I can try to make recordings of my own voice if you like.
Thanks for the info Lucus, it is very helpful when you relate Latin to me in Greek terms…I have a fairly handy grasp on Greek, and I know that when I learned Hebrew my prof would relate things back to Greek, and it helped immensely.
I think this is the key for me. Whereas the Greek Omega the tongue is on the bottom of the mouth with the tip pointed right at the salivary gland at the base of it.
One that a lot of students struggle with in Greek is the difference between alpha and omicron, they are very similar.
This puzzles me, because D’Ooge says that long i and short i are difference in sound, he says long i is like the i in machIne, and short i like the i in hIt. Is this no longer thought to be the case? I know that modern Greek scholarship has cast several old notions to the side in light of recent discoveries and research…is the same the case here, or does D’Ooge simply have a different kind of pronunciation…cf. with Ecclesiastical and Erasmian pronunciation with Greek.
With pleasure! I have but a paucity of Greek experience, but hopefully it will be enough.
[quote=“Lucus Eques”]
Remember to keep the tongue relatively high in the mouth, for this will change the sound drastically for the better.
[/quote]I think this is the key for me. Whereas the Greek Omega the tongue is on the bottom of the mouth with the tip pointed right at the salivary gland at the base of it.
Mm, a very good description of the sound.
One that a lot of students struggle with in Greek is the difference between alpha and omicron, they are very similar.
[quote=“Lucus Eques”]
As for the difference between short and long vowels, the Romans said that there was no fundamental difference in quality between the short and long versions of ‘a’, ‘i’, and ‘u’:
[/quote]This puzzles me, because D’Ooge says that long i and short i are difference in sound, he says long i is like the i in machIne, and short i like the i in hIt. Is this no longer thought to be the case? I know that modern Greek scholarship has cast several old notions to the side in light of recent discoveries and research…is the same the case here, or does D’Ooge simply have a different kind of pronunciation…cf. with Ecclesiastical and Erasmian pronunciation with Greek.
Well, it is a curious subject, but this is what I surmise: The online book that I referenced is about a century old, but it finds its sources right in the ancient grammarians, who distinctly prove to us without a shadow of a doubt certain things, such as the lack of varience between short and long ‘i’ for example. However, the standard English pronunciation of classical Latin (that which we find in O’Dooge and Wheelock, among others) has been around for hundreds of years; and, as you doubtlessly are aware, matters of classical study are rarely wont to change. There are other more modern texts which support the “ee” sound of both short and long Latin ‘i’, so it would seem that these bad habits are merely ingrained, for old traditions die hard.
The reason that this assumption on the sound of short ‘i’ first came about seems to have been from the formation of a rather direct analogy between the sounds of English and Latin — which is obviously a very dangerous thing to do. In this pattern, all the short vowels in English are substituted by ersatz for all the Latin short vowels. The results are horrific. I am disgusted to no end by the ugliness of most English-speakers’ poor attempt at pronouncing Latin, not least of all by that of my former professor. Though the general ineptitude seems to be equally balanced on both sides of the pond, I’d say the American attempt revolts me more, if only because to my American ear the sound of any Brittish accent is pleasing, even when butchering the ancient language of the Romans. In any case, in English, our short ‘i’ is as in “hit,” and therefore the reflexive assumption made ages ago was that Latin had to have the same sound.
Which is of course ridiculous. That sound, of short English ‘i’, exists in no other language but our own. Only that of German comes closest, yet even the Teutonic short ‘i’ is much closer to the desired “ee” sound than ours is in both the standard Brittish and American dialects. And most importantly, it does not exist in any Romance language. Short English ‘i’ cannot be a sound of Latin. That English-speaking classicists should be the only classicists in the world to make such a claim to the contrary is quite telling.
Another likely reason could have been the notion that the sounds should differ drastically and with great exaggeration, in order to recognize the difference between the two sounds — whereas the natural Latin differences would be too subtle or possibly inaudible to the untrained ear. And finally, it may simply be because it is so hard to describe the true sounds of Latin by English example alone, that simply defaulting on the English is a much easier path for a new student.
The Romans seem to have described a vowel system identical to that of Italian, so I highly recommend that for reference.