Salvete! (And question about pronunciation)

Latin Learning Latin
1

Hello!
I am a college student, studying Latin on my own with Wheelock’s. I registered some time ago when I was starting with it. I’ve always wanted to post to this great forum, but never did get to do it. However, I am always visiting and reading what you all write. I have learned a lot from all of you. I have quite a passion for the Romance languages; what I go into as a career will definitely have to do with this (Linguistics Major). I have been a told I have a “gift” for learning languages. I’m guessing everyone who visits this board possesses this “gift”. :slight_smile: But, if I indeed have this gift, it is only for the Romance languages, because they’re the only ones that interest me, and I would not see myself learning Chinese, Arabic or German (Ancient Greek sends chills down my spine). I knew I would eventually learn Latin, just didn’t know when. The way I got “pulled” into finally learning Latin was that I asked someone online how to say “Son Of The Moon” in Latin. This person did not much Latin and so simply gave me a guess. Since he couldn’t really tell me, I began to research online and came across several Latin grammars and the like. A few days later, I went out and got the Dummie’s Guide to Latin. I went through that in a week, of course, and learned basically nothing. More history than language in that book. Well, then I began to read that Wheelock’s is one of the best, so I got it. Right now, I’m on chapter 24, and I must say I have learned a lot. I don’t know as much as most of you, certainly, but I definitely hope to be at your level one day. I can read and understand many passages from the Vulgate since it’s not as complex as Cicero or any ancient author, but I would love to read Harrius Potter. :wink:
The Romance languages are relatively easy for me. As you all know, they are very similar. I can fairly say that I speak fluently: Portuguese, Spanish, French and Italian. Right now, I’m tackling Catalan, and I’m doing pretty good with it. Of course, learning any of these Romance tongues could not compared to learning their “mother”, Latin, as it is indeed quite a challenge. I mean, I see the Romance languages as a one unit, and going one from one to the other as learning stylistical and dialectal differences, but to which one simply becomes adapted to.

Well, enough of that. Hehe. I just wanted to introduce myself and tell you all that along with Wheelock and Textkit I have learned what I know about Latin. I have always wanted to post questions and doubts, but like I said, never have. From now on, I will be seen here often.

Look forward to meeting and talking to you. :wink:

P.S. “Filius Lunae” comes from a song by the Spanish group Mecano (“Hijo De La Luna”), which some of you may know.

P.P.S. I have a blog about the Romance languages; I shall post its address soon. :wink:

My first question:
Which is the most proper way to pronounce the diphthong “ae” in Latin?
Wheelock’s says it’s pronounced /aj/, but I have come to find out that in some countries /e/ is preferred. I always pronounce it /aj/, but when I heard Nuntii Latini, I noticed that they pronounce it /e/ not /aj/ as Wheelock’s suggests. I am somewhat aware of the different pronounciations that existed before and after the Classical Period and also with the Ecc. pronunciation.
Also, I’ve noticed that the Nuntii Latini newscasters pronounce “qu” as /kv/, which sounds totally odd to me (as oppossed to /kw/). I once had encountered this and other pronounciations on a site, but I had disregarded it. Now, listening to Nuntii Latini, it is exactly the model they follow. It is this page which states this and more:

The double vowels are usually pronounced like two separate vowels, with the exception of AE and OE (if you
learn Latin at an American school, you’ll be taught to even pronounce AE and OE like two separate vowels,
which is inaccurate for the classical period).
AE is pronounced like ai in “fair”, but long, like German ä.
OE is pronounced like French “eu”, like German ö. The sound doesn’t exist in English, but it can be acquired
by saying “e” (as in “bed”) through closely rounded lips.

QU is pronounced kv (k in kick, v in vast)
GU is pronounced gv (g in garden, v in vast)
SU is pronounced sv (s in sun, v in vast)

This totally threw me off. Especially the pronunciation of “oe” as French “eu”, which feels totally un-Romance- even more un-Latin-like to me (French excepted, but that’s another day’s story). Now, /kv/, /gv/ and /sv/ sound more Slavic or Germanic. However, that’s what that site suggests and that’s what I hear in Nuntii Latini (unless I’m hearing completely wrong).

When speaking Latin with a Classical pronunciation, which model do you all follow, and which one do you think should be used? How do you pronounce these combinations in question? So now, the division isn’t only between Ecc. and Classical pronunciation, but also another division within the Classical one? Because the one explained above seems rather weird to me. But again, I’m not a Latinist, and who knows if it was pronounced that way before, during or after the Classical Period.

Thanks for your attention. :stuck_out_tongue:

2

Hallo!!!

Seems like the page gives a rather ecclestiastical pronunciation for the vowels, but as it said no one really knows how Latin was pronounced exactly (although conventional use, from lots of research, says AE “igh”) I always thought OE was o’eh’ “co-eh”-li for COELI.

As for qVid, that’s just strange. They wrote that way, but is really unnatural to say it w/ consonant.

3

Salve, O Fili Lunae!
Ou boa vinda! ou bienvenue! o benvenuto! Vero, mi sembri molto esperto nelle lingue! ben fatto, signore! Spero che posso apprendere meglio portughese nella futura.

But in any case! welcome! Latin is definitely the next logical step for you, I’m certain we’d all agree (but then, we’re biased :wink:). As I’m sure you’ve encountered already, the greatest disparity between Latin and her daughters that you’ll find is the grammar and its complexity, as well as often very different vocabulary choices; in my experience, any two Romance languages have more in common with one another than Latin to any of them. Still, to conquer a whole species of language makes you more than capable, in my opinion.

As for Nuntii Latini, it always threw me off too, and it bothers me so I don’t tend to listen to it. I’m very picky myself when it comes to pronunciation, as pretty much anyone here will attest. :slight_smile:

I just recently went on one of my typical rants about certain aspects of Latin pronunciation:

http://discourse.textkit.com/t/how-do-you-pronounce-cicero-and-caisar/2880/3

I think the Finns at Nuntii are just getting plain wrong, perhaps to be blamed on their native accents. As I insist on in that post, the letter and sound of “v” doesn’t exist in Latin; its addition comes much later. The Nuntii pronunciations are almost like Germanic Latin.

As for “ae,” consider them firstly as two vowels, and then when you speak more fluidly, you’ll find that abbreviating them to a diphthong not unlike the English word “I” sounds more appropriate. Still, I sometimes like to emphasize the non-Ecclesiastical pronunciation and pronounce the “ae” like in the Italian maestro, just for effect.
A general rule for pretty much any Latin diphthong in my opinion is to pronounce it like an Italian would, that is, a shortened version of the vowels individually.

So yes, as much as I love the Finns (and their language! divine speech it is), I doubt Cicero spoke that way.

Vel bene! oportune advenis, Fili! In hoc loco es gratissimus!

4

Welcome, you lurker! :stuck_out_tongue: I would go with Wheelock’s pronunciation if I were you. It does not include all that we know about how Latin sounded (or what we suppose we know anyway), but it is a good foundation for pronunciation to which the finer points can be added if you choose to research them.

The double vowels are usually pronounced like two separate vowels, with the exception of AE and OE (if you
learn Latin at an American school, you’ll be taught to even pronounce AE and OE like two separate vowels, which is inaccurate for the classical period).

This is way off, neither I nor anyone I know learnt this pronunciation and we live in America. I was taught to pronounce them as diphthongs.

AE is pronounced like ai in “fair”, but long, like German ä.

This is probably true for certain time periods, though it is hard to know where the pronunciation diverges. It is likely and almost certain that it originally was pronounced like “eye” (quickly ah+eh).

OE is pronounced like French “eu”, like German ö. The sound doesn’t exist in English, but it can be acquired
by saying “e” (as in “bed”) through closely rounded lips.

Probably true at some point, except it was mostly likely originally sounded “oy” (oh+eh).

QU is pronounced kv (k in kick, v in vast)
GU is pronounced gv (g in garden, v in vast)
SU is pronounced sv (s in sun, v in vast)

This I can say with certainty is utter nonsense if they are in fact talking about classical Latin. There is a vast amount of evidence to say that V was pronounced similarly to our W.

5

I’ve always pronounced [ae] as /aj/ as wheelock suggests, and oe kinda like (X-SAMPA) /we/ so [moenia] would be /mwenia/.

[qu] has always been /kw/, in contrast to [cu] which has been /ku/ (with the result that [qui] and [cui] sound different).

6

ae and oe originally came from the Greek ai and oi. Sound them out: “ah+ee” and “oh+ee”. Now, the oe began to sound like “u” which resulted in the spelling of words like punio instead of the original poenio.

The “qv” is to be pronounced like English “quick” - the English “v” sound didn’t exist in Classical or Ancient Latin, and it wasn’t until Medieval Latin that it started to sound like a “v” - however, qv always sounds like qw.

NB - cui, and also cur, come from the Ancient Latin words where modernists wanted to rid themselves of the q. (like Quor for cur)

But words like puella are pronounced: pu-el-la

This is because in IndoEuropean there is a GW (QW in Latin) but never a PW.

7

Except in Germanic Latin, which, along with Nuntii Latinii, uses all 'v’s where 'w’s are heard.

But words like puella are pronounced: pu-el-la

This is because in IndoEuropean there is a GW (QW in Latin) but never a PW.

Not necessarily. Italian is equally an Indo-European language, but contains the sound of ‘pw’ with ample frequency, such as in the word for “it can,” può. Our ‘th’ sound wasn’t in the original Indo-European either, but things change over time.

8

Are you sure about this? The Romans tended to avoid a series with a vocalic u following a consonantal u (or qu), by changing the vocalic u to an o or else dropping the consonantal u. When the the consonantal “parasitic” u is dropped from q, q becomes c. Such is the case with modern forms “equus”, “coquus”, “exstinguunt”, “servum”; Classical “ecus”, “cocus”, “exstingunt/exstinguont”, “servom”. This, I thought, what happens to quur: it drops the first u, making the q into a c (cur), or else it (less commonly) turns the second u into an o (quor). I’m not sure why cuius and cui exist, but I find it hard to imagine that a modernist conspiracy is going on without A&G knowing about it. It just seems like the q and u have separated to form c and u, perhaps for euphonic purposes.

9

I think what they are doing might reflect a somewhat sound approach. If we are not ultimately sure about the Latin pronunciation of Classical times (and we are only talking quality, not quantity!) it is best to stick with familiar phonetical patterns as long as phonologically your pronunciation makes at least limited sense. Native speakers of languages other than English cringe when they hear modern Anglo-Saxon “classical” pronunciation laced with non-vibrant "r"s, while caring very little about those distinct "w"s (sometimes such travesty even involves attempts at quantitative distinctions). So, what. It’s all fine. as long as phonologically everything is more or less clear.

In case of “ae” absolutely any way of pronouncing it will satisfy me as long as it is different from “e”. A diphtong will make the most sense, of course. I am not going to elaborate, but hopefully this gives an idea.

10

benissimus: when I said modernist, I meant modernist relative to the Romans, I guess about 300 BCE or so, not sure on the exact dates. And it wasn’t really a conspiracy, just a movement. And yes, cui and cuius are examples of this, although what they are originally I forget at the moment.

11

Aye, and it appears this tendency to add a consonantal ‘u’ sound would progress in Italian; for example the word for “man” uomo, or “heart,” cuore, “he wants” vuole, “he can” può, “school” scuola, and countless other examples.

12

Obrigado a todos! Gracias a todos! Gracies a tots! Merci à tous! Grazie a tutti! Gratias omnibus! <–(Don’t know if this last one is considered correct).

Well, thanks to all! :wink:

Lucus, I guess you’re not the only one for whom pronunciation is a big deal. For me, it’s just as important as learning grammar or anything else. I’m influenced a lot by what I hear, and I’m often told I have a good ear; almost like I can imitate the accent to the point of being taken as being from that country (i.e., from France if speaking French, from Portugal if speaking Portuguese, etc). It’s true that it might be a bit too early in my Latin education to be worrying about pronunciation, when I should be focusing on the grammar, syntax and all, which I am. Like I said, I don’t know nearly as much as most you of here but I hope to be reading original texts and even holding conversations (even if “virtual”), as you all do. So, Lucus, I totally understand where you’re coming from; I can connect. :smiley:

I guess if Latin were a live international language today (like English), we would expect different accents and deviating pronunciations (from the Classical one, that is). I suppose, as someone mentioned, that as long as what it’s being said is understood, we must not worry. Totally true, but read above. Also, I desired to know if there was some sort of consensus on this, at least in the U.S.

I have come to notice that each person adopts a pronunciation suited to himself, based on reasons that seem the most fit to him. That is, if someone is convinced,in whichever way, that the Romans pronounced “ae” as /e/, he’ll pronounce it this way; and the reverse is true. I mean, there are the people like Wheelock who say /aj/ and then the Nuntii Latini people who say /e/. Which one do you follow?
My own pronunciation as of now is more of a hybrid, based mostly on what seems fit and on the Romance languages. I’ll give my model (on the sounds in question):
ae - /aj/
oe - /oj/
qu - /kw/
th - /t/ as in Spanish/Italian; or sometimes, /t.h/ lightly aspirated
ph - /p/ as in Spanish/Italian; or sometimes, /p.h/ lightly aspirated; though sometimes I think the unvoiced counterpart to B in Spanish “saber” seems more proper.
ch - /k/ as in Spanish/Italian; or sometimes, /k.h/ lightly aspirated
r - /r/ as in Spanish, though I do tend to distinguish between tap and trill as in Spanish

I added the last four because those are noteworthy too. I would like to know what your model is on all these sounds. I should have made the title of this topic: QuestionS about pronunciation. Hehe

I also wanted to say that while listening to some Latin poetry, putting aside the elided sounds, I notice that “ae” is indeed pronounced /e/, while basically following the “Wheelock” model (we’ll call it that for now).

Gratias vobis ago. :slight_smile:

13

I agree quite a bit with your pronunciation choices.

14

Salve, Luce.

I have been reading this, regarding pronunciation. It is very interesting, and answers many of the questions I had.

“In Lucilius’s time the rustics said Cecilius pretor for Caecilius
praetor; in two Samothracian inscriptions older than B.C. 1OO (the
sound of AI by that time verging to an open E), we find muste piei
and muste: in similar inscriptions [Greek: transliterated]mystai
piei, and mystae: Paeligni is reproduced in Strabo by
[Greek:transliterated]Pelignoi: Cicero, Virgil, Festus, and Servius
all alike give caestos for [Greek:transliterated]kestos: by the
first century, perhaps sooner, E was very frequently put for AE in words
like taeter: we often find teter, erumna, mestus, presto and
the like: soon inscriptions and MSS. began pertinaciously to offer AE
for E: praetum, praeces, quaerella, aegestas and the like, the
AE representing a short and very open E: sometimes it stands for a long
E, as often in plaenus, the liquid before and after making perhaps the
E more open ([Greek:transliteration]skaenae is always scaena): and
it is from this form plaenus that in Italian, contrary to the usual
law of long Latin E, we have pièno with open E. With such pedigree
then, and with the genuine Latin AE always represented in Italian by
open E, can we hesitate to pronounce the AE with this open E sound?”

And I had forgotten about this:

Spero che posso apprendere meglio portughese nella futura.

Pois, quando quiseres, Lucus, aqui estou.:wink:

And, I find this odd:

oe kinda like (X-SAMPA) /we/ so [moenia] would be /mwenia/.

Is Sampa /w/ the same as IPA [w]? If so, where is this pronunciation followed (i.e. what country)??? :question:

Valete!

15

As far as the ‘o’ being like a ‘w’, that makes sense phonetically; a short, semivowel ‘o’ would sound a lot like a short, semivowel ‘u’.

16

I just wanted to point out this site I found (that you all may know already). It follows accurately the “Wheelock’s” Classical Pronunciation model, as I have labeled it. That is, pronouncing: “ae” as /aj/; “oe” as /oj/"; “qu” as /kw/; and so forth. One thing I noticed and which I was wondering about also was that on that site they always trill (i.e. roll) the Rs. Like I said before, I usually pronounce them as in Spanish: r vs. rr, e.g. carus vs. erro (tap vs. trill). Now I see it’s more like in Northern Italian, where the difference lies not in the tenseness (tap/trill), but in the length, as in s vs. ss.

The recordings on that site are the best I have heard. actually following this pronunciation model.