Similar texts published in different countries would certainly indicate that there might be something here…at any rate, I shall be interested to discuss it with you all Sunday.
Of course you are welcome, Hu! Till tomorrow.
Luce, Cantator, Hu
First part of an article on this that could be useful for tomorrow: http://www.adrianmallonmultimedia.com/latin/dryfigs/dryfigs.pdf. (Still very much in draft form.)
Adrianus
P.S. I’m sure many will be dubious, but it appears to me, from what I can discover about Eduard Fraenkel’s work from reviews and such (without yet getting hold of a copy of Iktus und Akzent, Berlin, 1928), that Fraenkel establishes for the classical period the sort of accentuation that the materials I’m looking at indicate for the later period. That’s some continuity of oral practice! Even accented ablative ‘â’, for good measure, and the lovely note from Ramus about the final element in a list being an oxytone (I mentioned it earlier) seems to have been noted by Fraenkel as occurring in the classical period (the word in a subclause before the final comma),–exactly as we do today in English and French, and no doubt other languages! I think what counts as ultimate accented ablatives were only applied when they were spoken with emphasis. Emphasis can make any word an oxytone, ultimately accented! Which is exactly what you do to carefully distinguish a word, and not on all occasions. Only in the later period does the circumflex come to stick, and to serve a slightly different purpose: differentiating the read text primarily, rather than the spoken text. The effect of questioning, then, to make words oxytones, --that, also, could be consided just a special instance of Emphasis. And Emphasis has a role to play in understanding Fraenkel’s very-formal-sounding ‘accentual unities’ (illà seni, illé pater, minimé malas, decém ininas, veniám dare), where words performing a qualifying role do tend to receive a bit of emphasis in speech. 
Mmm.
I’ll try to be there. The Better Half may have some employment for me though, I’m usually the last to know.
If I can make it, shall I just contact you directly and then use the conference call option in Skype ? Any other technicalities I should know about ?
I don’t think there’s anything else. Hope to see you there! I’m on now.
By the way, my Skype name is SignorAmadeo, so you can find me, Adriane.
Thanks Luce, I found you and Cantator (Cantator1)
Adrian’s skype name is adrianmallon in Ireland (I used adrian.mallon2 in UK --I’m actually in Belfast, which is both Ireland and UK–for testing yesterday with another computer, but use adrianmallon.)
What’s your Skype name, Hu?
P.S. [9 October 2006.] The Skype conference is over and I found it tremendously helpful, and a real eye-opener about how useful Skype can be. This thread is writing about speech, but I can’t talk the talk (not the actual Latin talk, anyway), and my big inhibition is getting started in basic Latin conversation. We read some of the Lily text published in Appendix 1 of the linked draft paper above, an extract from a Corderius colloquuy, and from Diomedes on Accent. Well, Lucus gave the beautiful readings, Hu contributed Greek interpretations and really nice Latin, and I read in my fashion. Lucus himself described his accenting as between Latin, Greek and Italian, and I think he’s in a great place with that,-- very rich in possibilities regarding overlap between verse and the natural speaking voice. (How to get a copy of Fraenkel, Iktus und Aksent?! Has anyone got one at their college library? because I think it’s out of copyright for photographing–1928.) I’ll put up an extended Corderius soon.
Adrianus
Sorry, guys, Sundays are not very good for me. Ivy and I see each other through the week, but we only stay together on the weekends, which means I’m usually preoccupied on Saturday and Sunday.
IIRC there’s a way to audio archive a Skype conversation, perhaps you could record one of these conversations ?
Also, some of you might find it good to know that the Project Gutenberg includes a number of interesting Latin texts, including a Jesuit’s grammar of Japanese published in the early 17th century. Of more immediate interest is the complete Varro on-line there.
Care Adriane, you might especially enjoy the Japanese grammar, it’s chock-full of diacritical markings intended to aid the learner in the intonation of the language. It might be pertinent re: how those marks evolved and were used in the Latin grammar of the time.
Lucus, will you be available for a conversation via Skype tomorrow ? I have a short schedule then, I start teaching at 4:30 and end at 7:00. Any good time before or after those hours ?
Cantator, yes, I will be around today until about 2:30 PM when I have to leave, and then Tuesday afternoon I will be available again. Iulianus and I have our regular conversation in Latin at 1:00 PM ET today, which anyone is welcome to attend. I’ll check back here to see what you decide.
Adrian and Wayne, thank you for a very enlightening conversation yesterday. I have more to comment, but I’ll save it for later.
Iktus und Akzent, from what I understand, is not very highly regarded today. Indeed Fraenkel himself, after a review by Paul Maas, regretted that he had ever written it. I would be cautious of using it as evidence.
I know I’m entering this discussion a little late, and while I’ve read every post, I don’t promise that I have read them all with the attention that they deserve. Nevertheless, what do the supporters of the pitch theory make of W.S. Allen’s dismissal of the theory (with discussion) in Vox Latina? If you don’t have access to his discussion, I will be glad to summarize the main points.
That is a good quæstion, Didyme. To say that Latin, or any language, “lacks a pitch accent” is extremely foolish. The Romans say themselves: just as there can be no syllable without a vowel, so too can there be no syllable without a pitch. The pitch may be neutral, elevated, or lowered. This is a property of all language.
What differs in Latin from the ancient Greek language is that the patterns of pitch accent are not constant. The only parts constant in the Latin word are the lengths of syllables, and the consequent stress that falls according to those syllable lengths (specifically, if the pænultimate syllable is long, the stress falls on it; if the pænultimate syllable is short, then the stress falls on the antepænult).
Greek accentation has two parts that involve our discussion: the original placement of pitch accent, and the way that pitch accent sounds according to its environment. The original placement of a Greek pitch accent is constant, and will shift according to regular rules. The type of accent that it is (acute, grave, or circumflex) is dependent on its environment. For example, a long vowel with only one short or no following syllable will receive a circumflex accent, which is the rise and fall of the voice. The Romans repræsented this effect in their own language: Lûna. But if the long vowel is followed by a long syllable or more than one syllable, the pitch accent will be acute: Lúnae. This is an extremely natural feature of language, not unique to Greek and clearly præsent as well in Latin — the Romans tell us so.
In short, Latin certainly lacked a fixed and grammatically essential pitch accent as in Greek, but variations of pitch were quite regular, and sometimes separate from the position of Latin stress.
Certainly the Romans may have used pitch for any of a number of reasons. I do not dispute this, nor do I know anyone that does. (Surely nobody thinks that Latin was always spoken in a strict monotone.)
I understand well the rules of Greek accentuation (indeed, I take a perverse enjoyment in reading about it – Probert’s introductory book on the subject provides hours of fun!). Why should Greek accentuation patterns map on to Latin words? I don’t have Vox Latina in front of me, but Allen argues that the archaic Latin most definitely had a stress accent. He then argues that while yes, the Roman grammarians themselves did sometimes discuss pitch, we cannot trust their discussions because they are frequently imitative of the Greek. These grammarians do not necessarily reflect the genuine prosody of Latin. Indeed, he argues that the close coincidence of “rules” between the two languages is quite far-fetched – why would two separate languages independently evolve such a minute concord in their rules of pitch? (Think of your luna example.) There are plenty of other languages with pitch whose rules operate quite differently. Why would Latin and Greek be so similar? Could it be that the Latin grammarians were copying their Greek “betters”? This becomes a cultural question as well, I think, of how Romans viewed the Greeks and their various influences.
Again, I don’t dispute at all the notion that the Romans spoke their language with varying pitch patterns. I do, however, question the idea that these patterns can be divined by comparison from the Greek. While Allen is assuredly not faultless, and while an argument by appeal to authority isn’t much of an argument at all, the fact remains that his work is the modern standard on the subject. Thus differing interpretations of the evidence need to take his arguments into account and at least attempt to provide some discussion of his thoughts.
Indeed, Latin has and had a stress accent principally. (And let us be clear with our terms — that is, not to use the word “accent” for any sound but pitch variation.) The pitch accent is secondary flourish. The idea is that Greek is full only of flourish, rigorously implemented.)
He then argues that while yes, the Roman grammarians themselves did sometimes discuss pitch, we cannot trust their discussions because they are frequently imitative of the Greek.
At first this was my opinion too (see my earlier posts in this thread). I believed Allen on this. But it does not hold up: the Romans don’t just mention this sporadically, for practically every grammarian comments upon the pitch accents of their language.
These grammarians do not necessarily reflect the genuine prosody of Latin.
I understand where this is coming from, but outright defiance of what has been told to us by the grammarians is foolish. It is from them that we know about all the rest of Latin pronunciation; why ignore them when it becomes inconvenient for our model?
Indeed, he argues that the close coincidence of “rules” between the two languages is quite far-fetched – why would two separate languages independently evolve such a minute concord in their rules of pitch?
Ah! but Latin and Greek share so much in common! And in this case the dominating feature is constant syllable length. I am a fairly competent Latin speaker, and in my personal revival of the language I have endeavored principally to maintain two factors when I talk: syllable length (essentially the scansion of prose), and given word stress. Have maintained these two things, I have come to apply pitch variations intuitively to my Latin in a regular fashion — in a manner nearly matching that described by the ancient Romans and by later grammarians, which I have discovered only in the course of this thread due to Adrian’s revelations to us. More below.
(Think of your > luna > example.)
Indeed! and what a perfect example! For the Latin pronunciation of Lûna with a circumflex accent is identical to the Italian pronunciation. The quantity of vowels and syllables in this Latin word exactly match those of the same Italian word. The result? Italians naturally say la lûna, with a distinct and quick rise and fall of pitch on the long vowel ‘u’. Since I have had much experience with Italian, I intuitively applied these pitch variations unconsciously, and was unaware of their significance until this very thread.
There are plenty of other languages with pitch whose rules operate quite differently. Why would Latin and Greek be so similar?
To reiterate, it is clear that constant syllable length is the determining factor in allowing these languages to operate similarly when it comes to pitch. Italian shares some similarity as well, but all unstressed vowels in Italian are shortened, and stressed vowels lengthened, limiting the direct comparison between Italian and Latin to words such as lūna that are unaffected by the mutations of Italian.
Could it be that the Latin grammarians were copying their Greek “betters”? This becomes a cultural question as well, I think, of how Romans viewed the Greeks and their various influences.
Although the Romans clearly æmulated the Greeks in many ways, the Roman grammarians did not, in this one aspect of speech, impose something artificial and Greek on their own language. Indeed, the grammarians say how Latin is ‘poor, for it cannot possess an acute accent [with rare exceptions] on the final syllable as in Greek.’ In making the comparison of Latin accentuation with that of Greek, the grammarians just as frequently point out the differences.
Again, I don’t dispute at all the notion that the Romans spoke their language with varying pitch patterns. I do, however, question the idea that these patterns can be divined by comparison from the Greek.
The point that I wish to make in response is that the patterns of accentuation in Latin, such as in the Luna example, are intuitive, and natural. That they nearly match Greek merely proves that the Romans and Greeks were all human beings, possessing the same basic organs of speech.
I’ll have to take a look at the sources regarding this. (I believe Allen has an appendix containing citations from the grammarians.) That being said, an error can be pervasive, either reflecting grammarians copying each other or being influenced by the same underlying bias in favor of the “linguistically superior” Greeks. Thus this evidence is more convincing in direct proportion to its independence.
These grammarians do not necessarily reflect the genuine prosody of Latin.
I understand where this is coming from, but outright defiance of what has been told to us by the grammarians is foolish. It is from them that we know about all the rest of Latin pronunciation; why ignore them when it becomes inconvenient for our model?
We ignore what the ancients said all the time. Why? Not to put too fine a point on it, but: because they were wrong. Take a look at any number of clearly incorrect etymologies in the grammarians. Take a look at some of the ridiculous commentary in the scholia on just about any ancient text – scholia on the choral passages of the tragedians, for example, sometimes present completely inaccurate analyses of their colometry. Should we trust these scholia just because they were ancient? I would answer that we must always examine the evidence for ourselves. We should not dismiss ancient grammarians out of hand, but we should not trust them too much either.
Indeed, he argues that the close coincidence of “rules” between the two languages is quite far-fetched – why would two separate languages independently evolve such a minute concord in their rules of pitch?
Ah! but Latin and Greek share so much in common! And in this case the dominating feature is > constant syllable length> . I am a fairly competent Latin speaker, and in my personal revival of the language I have endeavored principally to maintain two factors when I talk: syllable length (essentially the scansion of prose), and given word stress. Have maintained these two things, I have come to apply pitch variations intuitively to my Latin in a regular fashion — in a manner nearly matching that described by the ancient Romans and by later grammarians, which I have discovered only in the course of this thread due to Adrian’s revelations to us. More below.
Old English maintained distinctions based on syllable quantity. No one has yet (to my knowledge, which admittedly is incomplete) proposed that Old English had recoverable pitch patterns. Certainly not ones analogous to Greek. A language’s attention to syllable quantity alone is not evidence for pitch patterns.
Furthermore, I would be cautious about discussing “constant” syllable quantity. There is manifestly not a strict 2:1 ratio of heavy to light syllables. Allen has some good examples of this, if I recall correctly. (Basically say a word with a vowel that is long by nature, and then say a word with a vowel long by nature that has three consonants in a row. Those syllables must have different durations.)
(Think of your > luna > example.)
Indeed! and what a perfect example! For the Latin pronunciation of > Lûna > with a circumflex accent is > identical to the Italian pronunciation> . The quantity of vowels and syllables in this Latin word exactly match those of the same Italian word. The result? Italians naturally say > la lûna> , with a distinct and quick rise and fall of pitch on the long vowel ‘u’. Since I have had much experience with Italian, I intuitively applied these pitch variations unconsciously, and was unaware of their significance until this very thread.
What about French? From what I understand (I do not know French), they rely on pitch more than stress. How do their rules work? If they work differently, then how can we point to Italian as having a privileged position in reconstructing Latin? What about Spanish? I do know Spanish, but I am not linguistically learned enough to be able to discern what pitch patterns I may be unconsciously employing when speaking. (Spanish does rely primarily on stress.)
Could it be that the Latin grammarians were copying their Greek “betters”? This becomes a cultural question as well, I think, of how Romans viewed the Greeks and their various influences.
Although the Romans clearly æmulated the Greeks in many ways, the Roman grammarians did not, in this one aspect of speech, impose something artificial and Greek on their own language. Indeed, the grammarians say how Latin is ‘poor, for it cannot possess an acute accent [with rare exceptions] on the final syllable as in Greek.’ In making the comparison of Latin accentuation with that of Greek, the grammarians just as frequently point out the differences.
The Romans loved imposing artificial and Greek things on their language, such as the entirety of their quantitative poetic tradition. As I said though, I’ll have to look to the grammarians – the more differences that they mention, the stronger your case.
Again, I don’t dispute at all the notion that the Romans spoke their language with varying pitch patterns. I do, however, question the idea that these patterns can be divined by comparison from the Greek.
The point that I wish to make in response is that the patterns of accentuation in Latin, such as in the Luna example, are intuitive, and natural. That they nearly match Greek merely proves that the Romans and Greeks were all human beings, possessing the same basic organs of speech.
Yes, we are all humans and possess the same basic organs of speech. We use them quite differently though. Take, for example, the American and British varieties of English. Americans and Brits have widely different pitch patterns when speaking the exact same sentences. For example, questions are asked with a markedly different pitch pattern between the two dialects.
Thus, granting you that we have the same organs of speech and even going one step further and forcing us to speak the same sentences with the same meaning, we can observe that pitch patterns can still vary wildly. I would be very cautious about assuming what pitches are “natural.”
“The error can be pervasive”? How can this be? The Romans knew their own language, and they knew what it did. They are not in our position, ignorant of the sound of Latin: they spoke it first!
We ignore what the ancients said all the time. Why? Not to put too fine a point on it, but: because they were wrong. Take a look at any number of clearly incorrect etymologies in the grammarians.
Etymology is guesswork. Pronunciation of their own tongue was vividly a part of their lives.
Take a look at some of the ridiculous commentary in the scholia on just about any ancient text – scholia on the choral passages of the tragedians, for example, sometimes present completely inaccurate analyses of their colometry.
Are these Romans trying to analyse Greeks? Again, these are apples are oranges.
Should we trust these scholia just because they were ancient? I would answer that we must always examine the evidence for ourselves. We should not dismiss ancient grammarians out of hand, but we should not trust them too much either.
I agree entirely with your sentiment.
Old English maintained distinctions based on syllable quantity. No one has yet (to my knowledge, which admittedly is incomplete) proposed that Old English had recoverable pitch patterns. Certainly not ones analogous to Greek. A language’s attention to syllable quantity alone is not evidence for pitch patterns.
Old English? We have but a paucity of Old English texts. Of Latin we have thousands of years of Republic, Empire, and the 1500 years that followed. And in that time the decadent Romans had more than enough time to wallow in extravagant subjects like this one, while the Angles were fighting for survival.
Moreover, Old English, a Germanic language, has a pronunciation drastically different from that of Greek and Latin. Greek and Latin consonants are basically the same (granting the Greek aspirated varieties), and the vowels are also similar. Even the case systems and endings show distinct connexions. That the Romans claimed their language to be a dialect of Greek was not vanity, but, for all intensive purposes, an extremely insightful observation that was only proven thousands of years later upon the discovery of Indo-European.
Furthermore, I would be cautious about discussing “constant” syllable quantity. There is manifestly not a strict 2:1 ratio of heavy to light syllables. Allen has some good examples of this, if I recall correctly. (Basically say a word with a vowel that is long by nature, and then say a word with a vowel long by nature that has three consonants in a row. Those syllables must have different durations.)
I would never debate this. Still, a syllable of whatever long variety is always going to be that length, despite its position. That is constance.
What about French? From what I understand (I do not know French), they rely on pitch more than stress. How do their rules work?
French stress and pitch are quite variable depending upon a word’s position in a sentence. The overarching feature is a lack of constant syllable length, with most syllables short.
If they work differently, then how can we point to Italian as having a privileged position in reconstructing Latin? What about Spanish?
Spanish has no long syllables whatsoever. Italian does, hence its comparison with Latin.
The Romans loved imposing artificial and Greek things on their language, such as the entirety of their quantitative poetic tradition.
The Romans didn’t “impose” anything. They found that the system of Greek poetry fit the Latin language, thus they adopted it. You can bet there have been scores of English classicists, including myself an American student, who have attempted to fit the Greek metres to English — but it doesn’t work the same way at all, because our syllable lengths are not constant. The inhaerent similarity between Greek and Latin is what allowed the Romans to adopt the lovely Greek metres, and made them their own. Although willing, we are incapable.
Yes, we are all humans and possess the same basic organs of speech. We use them quite differently though. Take, for example, the American and British varieties of English. Americans and Brits have widely different pitch patterns when speaking the exact same sentences. For example, questions are asked with a markedly different pitch pattern between the two dialects.
Of course, and the differences among Italian dialects would make a Texan and a Londoner sound like brothers by comparison. Yet the basic potential for accentation remains quite the same. Where every high and low pitch goes determines the difference of dialects. Where they can go is an aspect of the language.
Many thanks, Didymus, for pointing out how one needs to approach Fraenkel with caution. That’s good advice, because I’m just repeating stuff from secondary sources about him. I need to learn more.
Didymus refers to Allen. Here is what Allen says in one part of the chapter on Accent (Vox Latina, p.84): “The Greek rules for the choice between acute and circumflex are also applied to Latin: thus Pompeius (K.v.,126) distinguishes árma: Mûsa, as e.g., Greek [can’t do the letters in Greek] and Priscian (K,ii,7) distinguishes hámis: hâmus, as e.g., [can’t do the letters in Greek] . It is inconceivable that Latin should have developed a system of pitch accents that agreed in such minor detail with Greek, and we can only assume that the grammarians have slavishly misapplied the Greek system to the description of Latin (just as Greek grammarians continued to describe the Greek accent in trems of pitch long after it had changed to stress)”
I know no Greek, and I may be nuts, but the accenting distinction between acute and circumflex that is described (by Priscian, Pompeius and others) seems exactly as I learned to intone when declining nouns and conjugating verbs when I was twelve years old (from teachers with no Greek). The distinction seems rather ‘natural’, although I don’t know what that means exactly. The evidence for such pitch intonation from Keil extends right up to the seventeenth century, and I can see that not only in the later Latin grammarians but in English grammars and French grammars written in Latin seeking to describe English and French phonemically. I had to search them for evidence that Latin accenting was real and sounded, and found this corroboration in these bi-lingual sources. The primary sources are all, but as interpreters we bring many agendas. However, I haven’t yet been brought to believe that all these educators seeking to communicate about how Latin should be spoken are slavishly misapplying Greek accenting for 1700 years. For me, it’s definitely pitch distinction in the classroom and teaching contexts and in emphatic distinction (as described in texts) generally.
Adrianus
We have to consider the sources. When were these grammarians writing? What were they basing their knowledge on? Priscian, for example, was writing around 500 AD. He was in a very poor position to know exactly how Cicero would have spoken. So what did he rely on? This is a genuine question; I don’t know the answer offhand. It would be quite easy for him to be influenced by Greek grammarians and impute their precepts onto Classical Romans, for the oft-alluded to reason that the Romans seemed to view the Greeks as their linguistic and cultural betters. On the other hand, Varro’s beliefs about Cicero’s pronunciation might actually be based on direct experience. Nevertheless, when writing them down, he still might write what he thought was “proper” (and for the Romans, “proper” could be synonymous with “Greek”), not what was actually spoken.
Again, the main reason for suspicion is that the coincidence of accentual minutiae that the grammarians posit seems just too close for separate languages with very different histories and influences. Yes, they are both Indo-European, but so is Sanskrit, and so is Old Icelandic, and so is Old Persian, etc. We don’t see (nor do we expect to) such accentual coincidence between these languages, generally speaking (ok, ok, Skt. pitar has an accentual pattern like Greek pater as it’s declined, and this probably represents an old IE pitch pattern, but this is not the normal observation).
Furthermore, if I recall correctly (and I may not – at work I don’t have access to my sources), the grammarians make statements about pitch which occur precisely where we should expect to find statements about stress.
We ignore what the ancients said all the time. Why? Not to put too fine a point on it, but: because they were wrong. Take a look at any number of clearly incorrect etymologies in the grammarians.
Etymology is guesswork. Pronunciation of their own tongue was vividly a part of their lives.
Take a look at some of the ridiculous commentary in the scholia on just about any ancient text – scholia on the choral passages of the tragedians, for example, sometimes present completely inaccurate analyses of their colometry.
Are these Romans trying to analyse Greeks? Again, these are apples are oranges.
These are Greeks trying to analyze Greeks. The Greeks spoke their own language, but they got it wrong. If you don’t like the Greek example, we can cite passages in Gellius or other Romans where they simply get something linguistically wrong, such as the gender of a noun. These frequent errors caution us against trusting them too much.
Old English maintained distinctions based on syllable quantity. No one has yet (to my knowledge, which admittedly is incomplete) proposed that Old English had recoverable pitch patterns. Certainly not ones analogous to Greek. A language’s attention to syllable quantity alone is not evidence for pitch patterns.
Old English? We have but a paucity of Old English texts. Of Latin we have thousands of years of Republic, Empire, and the 1500 years that followed. And in that time the decadent Romans had more than enough time to wallow in extravagant subjects like this one, while the Angles were fighting for survival.
We have a fairly sizable corpus of Old English. Nothing like Latin or Greek, but large enough and with a developed enough poetry that we can reasonably investigate it. If you don’t like OE, try Old Icelandic – they have a larger poetic corpus. They use same poetic principles, same quantitative meter, but have no pitch accent.
Moreover, Old English, a Germanic language, has a pronunciation drastically different from that of Greek and Latin. Greek and Latin consonants are basically the same (granting the Greek aspirated varieties), and the vowels are also similar. Even the case systems and endings show distinct connexions. That the Romans claimed their language to be a dialect of Greek was not vanity, but, for all intensive purposes, an extremely insightful observation that was only proven thousands of years later upon the discovery of Indo-European.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by a different pronunciation. Greeks, Romans, and Anglo-Saxons all made roughly the same sounds, they just combined them differently with different stresses and pitches. We do the same today. Latin and Greek are not necessarily closely related languages – IE, yes, and closely-related cultures, but I am not at all certain that they are linguistically closer to each other than Latin is to, say, Celtic. I am not enough of a historical linguist to be able to comment on that intelligently. Of course, I am not enough of a historical linguist to comment on any of this intelligently, but I still am! 
The Romans loved imposing artificial and Greek things on their language, such as the entirety of their quantitative poetic tradition.
The Romans didn’t “impose” anything. They found that the system of Greek poetry fit the Latin language, thus they adopted it. You can bet there have been > scores > of English classicists, including myself an American student, who have attempted to fit the Greek metres to English — but it doesn’t work the same way at all, because our syllable lengths are not constant. The inhaerent similarity between Greek and Latin is what allowed the Romans to adopt the lovely Greek metres, and made them their own. Although willing, we are incapable.
Consider archaic Latin verse. Saturnians, say. While we don’t fully understand the principles by which that meter operated, it certainly wasn’t Greek meter. Greek meter was imported by Ennius and fashioned to fit the Latin language. Latin may be better suited to it than modern English, but it was not a native meter. It was imposed. In Latin poetry there is constantly the tension between ictus and accent. This is not a “natural” thing; Greek verse does not seem to exhibit this contrast (a controversial claim, to be sure). Now this interplay between ictus and accent in Latin verse can make for fascinating and beautiful poetry, but this only arose by forcing the Latin language to fit into Greek meter.
Yes, we are all humans and possess the same basic organs of speech. We use them quite differently though. Take, for example, the American and British varieties of English. Americans and Brits have widely different pitch patterns when speaking the exact same sentences. For example, questions are asked with a markedly different pitch pattern between the two dialects.
Of course, and the differences among Italian dialects would make a Texan and a Londoner sound like brothers by comparison. Yet the basic > potential > for accentation remains quite the same. Where every high and low pitch goes determines the difference of dialects. Where they > can > go is an aspect of the language.
I don’t think Greek accentuation principles will tell us where the Latin pitches go. Barring the discovery of ancient tape recordings, I fear that real knowledge of intonation and pitch patterns of ancient Latin are probably gone forever. A pessimistic perspective, perhaps, and I don’t mean to say that we shouldn’t try to glean what we can. I just think we always need to temper our hopes with some realism. This being said, I would love to be proven wrong. It would be wonderful to know more about how the Romans themselves actually spoke.
Salue Didyme,
You talk about looking at the evidence in Allen for what the grammarians say. Vox Latina contains six pages (pp.95-101) of pithy quotations from the early grammarians. You are quite right: they can provide only indirect evidence of earlier practice. Each, after all, is talking about his own Latin, albeit with reference to earlier authorities to recommend it. They are practical teachers, and not teaching historical Latin. But look at the treatises in Keil, and you will be amazed at the sophisticated and highly-tuned analyses of voice. It’s as Lucius says: they know their own language. Again, it doesn’t mean you have to believe anything, but you will never question their hearing abilities, and you will emerge with the greatest respect for them, by and large. They’re writing in the same ‘thickness of a pencil mark’ that Whorf uses to describe recently acquired linguistic knowledge (–understanding, also, ‘stylus mark’). And if you can’t learn how the Roman’s spoke, you may learn how these witnesses spoke. I’m excited about that.
Adrianus.
That’s interesting- you learned this kind of thing in the classroom?
Actually, the Greek and Sanskrit accents generally do accord like that.
Be back later.
Sure, Hu, but I don’t think there was anything particularly special about how I was taught. Tell me if I’m imagining things, but recite the following without notice of the accenting but with due care to vowel length and syllable stress (however you understand that), and then think about the accenting as written (as we discussed previously):
ámo
ámas
ámat
amâmus
amâtis
ámant
fúi
fuÃsti
fúit
fúimus
fuÃstis
fuèrunt
Do you get what I mean? or am I willing things to be that way? Where do your ‘mus’ and ‘tis’ syllables begin: high note or median note? Where does your ‘runt’ syllable begin: median note or low note? And then think about where the other syllables begin, immediately after the acutes: high note or median note. Best to exaggerate, to hear better, I suggest. But try without exaggeration first. (By exaggeration I mean emphasizing each word in isolation.) Note that the accenting follows the grammarians’ general rules. Of course, all I have to do is record my voice and look at the waveform. I think I’ll do just that. But better if another does it.
Adrianus.
It;'s more difficult than I thought to generate a pitch profile of a sound file. I’m looking at AudioXplorer (freeware for Mac) to see can this do the job.