Recently, I read somewhere, the ending m was only used to denote that -u was to be pronounced in a nasal way, with a heavy nuance of m. Can that be the case? Greeks rendered many that Latin words with –on. Are there other cases that some consonants or vowels were silent and only used to sign a special pronunciation of the previous / following vowel or consonant? I remember, here was once a discussion about gn that was actually like English ng, but most other European languages mistook it as gn.
On the matter of the final M, Roman grammarians did acknowledge that it was not a normal M, and Allen provides some quotes in Vox Latina (Priscian and Velius Longus, whom I cannot locate on the interwebs). Exactly what sound it made is open to some speculation, but the fact that words ending in M could be elided as if ending in a vowel and that final M was sometimes omitted in inscriptions suggests that final M was not quite a consonant. I’d speculate that neuters and accusatives in -um were represented -ον in Greek because that was the obvious analogous ending and corresponded with the final M that at least appeared in the written form.
I remember, here was once a discussion about gn that was actually like English ng, but most other European languages mistook it as gn.
Almost… it is believed that the N causes the preceding G to assimilate to a palatal nasal (ŋ), but the N is still pronounced following G. Thus, the sequence G-N is probably pronounced NG-N (ŋn).
There are several other situations where certain consonants were used to represent unusual sounds, but some of those uses are distinct to early or later Latin. I really recommend buying Vox Latina if this sort of thing is interesting to you; it is somewhat expensive for a paperback, but still cheaper than most scholarly editions.
The ablest analysis of the question pins down the phonetics of -m as a nasalized [w] in careful speech, which in poetry behaved like a final glide and in casual speech styles seems to have dropped altogether. In certain fossilized phrases the complete loss of > m > with elision of the preceding vowel was established even in careful speech: > animadverto > ‘notice’ (> animum adverto > or > veneo > ‘go for sale’ (> venum eo> ).
Mytacism, then, seems to denote the mistake of pronouncing -m as an actual [m]; before a vowel, for the Roman ear, such an [m] had to belong to THE FOLLOWING WORD: so > partem agis > ‘you play the part’, if pronounced [partemagis[/i], could only be understood as > parte magis > ‘in part rather’.
from Paragraph 237 of Sihler’s New Comparative grammar of Greek and Latin.
Mytacism is a term used by some antique Roman scholars, presumably for the mispronunciation, as quoted.
What is important about the -m is that it is pronounced in clear speech (so Ciceros In Catilinam would have the nasal glide if said by Cicero himself, but perhaps not if his slave said it), but yet, it is dropped word-final in poetry, thus:
Qui potis est, inquis? Quod amant_em in_iuria talis (Catullus, 72)
the italizised letters are to be pronounced like a long in to make the verse fit to the dactylic hexameter.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml version="1.0"?>
…
Final -m in Latin is a representation of the nasalization of the preceding vowel.
One might write “donÅ©” with a tilde over the ‘u’ meaning nasalization, instead of “donum,” understanding that the final syllable is a nasalized “u,” or “statÄ©” for “statim,” “puellã” for “puellam,” “dicebã” for “dicebam,” and so forth. This is why elision occurs through a final -m — because, in a sense, it’s not really there. This is analagous to the final -e in the English word “fate” — this qualifying E serves the phonetic purpose to lengthen the preceding ‘a’; but in effect; it’s not really there.
Till now, we have only examples of final m. I can imagine how strange educated orators sounded to the audiences with all their efforts to articulate all those final m in official speeches, though they would not do it in everyday conversations. In poems, they will write m, but do not pronounce it since it does not go with the iambic meter. Were there other (semi)silent letters?
Lucus refers to the modern phonetic practice. In the past (especially the Middle Ages), the use of the tilde points just to the abbreviation and not to the sound. It’s a coincidence that, for a word ending in “m” , the phonetic symbol today corresponds to what was once done by way of abbreviation.
Quod de “~” notâ dicit Lucus cuidam consuetudini modernae et phoneticae appertinet. Haec nota anteâ (scripturis maximè aevi medii) non ad sonoritatem sed ad abbreviationis significantem appertinet. Coincidentia est verbo in “m” litteram terminato ut consuetudo hodiè phonetica sit cuius olim abbreviatione factum erat similis.
If Lucus was referring to my comment, I was talking about archaic inscriptions, where -m was more than often omitted, not medieval manuscripts.
It is, though, a funny coincidence that medieval practise points in the same direction as modern phonetic writing!
True enough, Timeodanaos, but a coincidence nonetheless, I believe, because the use of the tilde was arbitrary, whether at the end of a word or in its middle, where the “m” was certainly fully sounded. And the tilde was only one abbreviation among many others which don’t trigger thoughts about odd, modern-day phonetic coincidences. You could always hypothesize that the medieval practice with the tilde at least arose out of an earlier phonetic practice, even if it was used otherwise, but how to test that?
Rectè dicis, Timeodanaos. Coincidentia attamen, ut credo, quod arbitrarius usus huius notae (“~”), utrum in fine an in medio verbi ubi “m” littera clarè sonatur. Certè enumeratur titulus cum multis aliis notis quae de concidentiis recentum dierum phoeneticis cogitare non facunt. Fortasse putare tibi licet ut titulo usus aevi medii e modo prisco oritus est (etsi aliter significatur), at quomodò istud verificare?
One way would be to pick up the phone and give Charlemagne a ring, but I’m not sure he’d answer.
I’m not saying medieval manuscrips editors knew about ancient practise and copied it. I’m just in awe. The tilde instead of final -m was the first thing I ever learned about medieval Latin ortography, and the omission of final -m was one of the first things I learned about archaic inscriptions, after -us = -os.
Do you have his number? I thought it had been discontinued.
Habesne numerum? Non iam in usu eum putavi.
Where is it written that the “educated orators,” as you say, care Thoma, made such an effort to pronounce the final -m? It seems unnecessary that they should do so from my perspective.
Good point!
It is my conclusion, from what Benissimus, Timeodanaos and you, Lucus, wrote. Benissimus says there was a sound, but no one seems to know exactly how it sounded, Timeodanaos says only the educated would pronounce it, and last, your post. I made also a parallel with the Greek world, where from very old times educated people spoke in a strange, the “educated” way. We may watch it even in our days how the higher clergy speaks and handles the Greek language.
Quintilian 9,4,40:
On the other hand, wherever this same letter m comes at the end of a word and is brought into contact with the opening vowel of the next word in such a manner as to render coalescence possible, it is, although written, so faintly pronounced (e.g. in phrases such as multum ille and quantum erat) that it may almost be regarded as producing the sound of a new letter.316 For it is not elided, but merely obscured, and may be considered as a symbol occurring between two vowels simply to prevent their coalescence.
(source: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Quintilian/Institutio_Oratoria/9D*.html#note316)
Priscian:
m obscurum in extremitate dictionum sonat, ut templum, apertum in principio, ut magnus, mediocre in mediis, ut umbra
Velius Longius:
nam quibusdam litteris deficimus, quas tamen
sonus enuntiationis arcessit, ut cum dicimus virtutem et virum fortem consulem
Scipionem, pervenisse fere ad aures peregrinam litteram invenies
Another thing, stressed one-syllable words ending in -m in Latin have become -n in romance languages: Thus, ‘rem’ > French ‘rien’, ‘tuum’ > French ‘ton’.
And therefore, I believe final -m to have been pronounced in some way, probably nazalised.
I know precisely how final -m sounded and sounds (meaning a range of sounds all legitimate within the definition of the element) in ancient Latin and modern Latin with the Classical pronunciation. I have described it: nasalization of the preceding vowel; the final -m is not fully closed (as is the final -m in English “ram”). We have the Portuguese word “senão,” and that “ã” is much like the final syllable of the Latin word “puellam.”
This description is taken directly from the Roman grammarians, and is easily replicated in the mouth of the modern speaker to produce a Classically accurate sound.
“tuum” has two syllables, so you may like to alter your definition some — still, your observation is keen.
To make myself clearer, as it seems I forgot to include a very important piece of information about final M in my initial reply: there is good evidence in the Latin language, in its written forms, and in its derivative languages that an M at the end of a word (and sometimes at the end of a syllable) produced nasalization of the preceding vowel. However, I do not see how one can “precisely know how final -m sounded… in ancient Latin” based on the statements of the Latin grammarians. I also am not aware of evidence that final M was more or less enunciated in certain contexts. The only thing we know for sure from the Romans, if we are to trust grammarians, is that the sound is much unlike the normal letter M and has no separate letter of its own.
We can be, to a great extent, sure that the vowel before final M was nasalized, based on these facts:
- in word-final position the sound of M was “barely audible” (fere ad aures), also testified in its omission in some inscriptions
- the M sounds different at the end of a word (obscurum in extremitate… sonat)
- the vowel before M could be elided as if there were no consonant following
- M itself is a nasal consonant, which have been known in other languages to produce assimilation of nearby vowels
- certain peculiarities in the forms of Romance languages suggest a nasalized vowel in place of a former vowel-m series
Based on this, I feel, we can be very sure of our theory of final M, and I would certainly encourage this system of pronunciation, but I don’t think we can be absolutely sure without a short leap of faith.