-um

Latin Learning Latin
61

Professor Henry Higgins seeks to induct flower-girl Eliza Doolittle into the niceties of refined English speech in Shaw’s play Pygmalion. If you believe it impossible to articulate distinctions between words when speaking carefully in English, how is it possible to articulate syllable divisions in Latin which require attention to double consonants and, more relevantly, to the attachment of a consonant in a Latin word either to the preceding or to the following vowel when sandwiched between, and when the recommended pronunciation requires it? Thus ‘obeo’, ‘obambulo’, ‘obaudio’, ‘oborior’, ‘obumbro’, ‘inaccessus’ to ‘inaudsus’ (with 31 of this sort between), ‘exarcerbesco’ to ‘exuviae’ (with 435 words of this type between) and so on all require the first consonant to cling to the preceding vowel (not the following one).

Bernardi Shaw in dramate nomine Pygmalion, Professor Henricus Higgins de subtilitatibus pronuntiationis anglicorum benè eductorum Elizam Doolittle, venditricem florum, docere quaerit. Si te impossibile distinctiones anglicè inter dictionibus articulare credis, quam difficilius est latinè syllabas articulare, quae curam ad consonantes duplices dare requirunt, et, quod plùs pertinet, quae, consonante inter duas vocales, eam utrum cum unà vocali an cum alià coalescere indigent! Sic cum ‘obeo’, ‘obambulo’, ‘obaudio’, ‘oborior’, ‘obumbro’, ‘inaccessus’ ad ‘inaudsus’ (ampliùs interponentes triginta una dictiones huius generis), ‘exarcerbesco’ ad ‘exuviae’ (ampliùs interponentes quadringenti triginta quinque huius generis) et caetera, regula requirit ut consonans prima cum vocali praecedenti (et non sequenti) coalescat.

You deny the actor’s profession and the actor is all of us. Please ask one of your friends who is European, or a recent immigrant to America, what they think of my statement and then come back on that. (I’m not talking about the ability to speak different languages in different ways, by the way, although I could draw attention to that because it is relevant.)

Histrionis artem et histrionem in omnibus nobis negas. Amabò te, meam sententiam amico europaeo vel recenti adventui in Americam fingas, et deinde mihi reveni de hac re. (Non dico de linguas varias loquendo, obiter, etsi sic facere possim quià ad rem pertinet.)

Read the Diomedes quote again. Relegas quod dicit Diomedes.

This is how you reasoned on the Priscian quote. You assume I make an assumption and then accuse me of assuming! I did not make the assumption you ascribed to me.

Ecce quomodò ratiocinatus es, quod de Pompeio dixisti. Me aliquid dixisse ut non dixi opinaris et me accuso opinatus esse ubi nullum opinatus sum!

Where is that grand corpus published and have you read it? I would love to learn Italian but I cannot see how it will inform me about the formal pronunciation of classical Latin, just as learning modern English to find out how English was pronounced in the Middle Ages would leave one disappointed and misled. Also, read Allen’s Vox Latina, pp.78-82 (I believe you have the book) and then tell me that everyone thinks elision is the default in spoken classical Latin. You will find it otherwise.

Ubi est magnum testimoniorum corpus de quo dicis, et legisne eum? Me linguam Italicam discere cupiam. Attamen me intellegere non possum quomodò sic facere de pronuntiatione formali linguae latinae classicae me docebit. Sicut et, quod ad pronuntiationis studium linguae anglicae aevo medio attinens, defectus et circumductus eris, si solùm modernam linguam didiceris. Denique, Alleni libri nomine Vox Latina paginam duodeoctoginta ad octoginta duo legito (quem librum habes, ut credo), et tunc mihi narrato omnes usum elisioni in loquendo automaticum esse putare. Aliter invenies.

62

What? Cling to the preceding vowel? This is not how Latin syllabary functions, Adrian (by the way, you may call me Luke at this point; after al these pages on a single topic I consider us good friends :wink: ). I’m actually having difficulty understanding you. Are you saying that “obeo” would be divided syllabically ob-e-o rather than o-be-o? In Latin syllabary, o-be-o is correct, ob-e-o is incorrect.

And, ah yes, I get the reference now; Family Guy actually did a parody where Stewie ridiculed the speech of British children and sought to emend that of the local baby girl Eliza Pinchly. Great stuff.

Actually, friend, you seem more and more emotionally invested in this subject, and deeply attached to a few primary sources that do not reflect Classical Latin well at all, but better reflect the Latin spoken in the Late period, whether spoken with barbarisms, generic evolutions, or hypercorrections — this is not to discount their honesty; obviously they reflect their own times. But the issue is Latin thru the ages, and in particular focused on the Classical and pre-Classical period.


You ask me to reconsider the Diomedes quote. I wil quote your excellent translation:

For although it [the M] is written, it is not pronounced, as with ‘quousque tandem abutere’.

What more could one need? M is not pronounced when a vowel follows.

63

Also, it was fun to reread pp. 78-82 on “Vowel Junction” in Vox Latina. Allen provides lots of evidence for elision and contraction, and says that hiatus is to be avoided, and is rarer. So what’s the problem? I said the same, I think. If not, then I wasn’t being clear. So I clearly state: elision, contraction, and synizesis are the default for Latin, as it is for Italian, for the sake of example.

64

Yes, along with the others. Ita est, et cum aliis.

That’s twice you’ve said something like that. Not true. I do find it fun, though. Bis similiter dixisti. Non verum est. Jucundum est, ut puto.

Well I did switch to talking about Quintilian and Cicero.
Verti autem ad de Quintiliano Ciceroneque loquendum.

Reread the whole quote. Repeto, totum relegas.

65

You want to hoodwink me, but I won’t let you off the hook about Pompeius, who says hiatus is less in “musa habuit” than in “musa amabo”.
You said that he was not a credible source because classically there was elision between these words and besides, H was not pronounced in Pompeius’s day. I disagreed with you on all counts.

But why is this, good sir, that you should disagree? You act as if you do not know that the pronunciation of ‘h’ was lost in Greek and in Latin in this time period, for which reason the Romance languages leave ‘h’ as a silent letter, or drop its writing altogether. Your very name Adrian in place of “Hadrian” is testament to this loss of the ‘h’ — French, Spanish, and Italian also all lost the sound of ‘h’, the rough breathing, just as they lost the nasalized vowels marked by final -m in favor of simple vowels.

This is why I question Pompeius. He sounds like he is discordant with the trends of the times. Hence, I accuse him of being hypercorrective, or part of a long train of thought perhaps hundreds of years in length from older, past grammarians that also were hypercorrective.

Will you not admit your initial assessment of Pompeius was wrong on both these matters (regarding the sounding of H and the degree of hiatus)?

Why do you want me to admit to being wrong? Relative “right” and “wrong” do not interest me. I am interested in the truth.
I assure you, of course, amice, that I am unhurt and fully enjoy these romps! Still, I hope a desire to be right is not clouding your judgement, or your enjoyment.

Remember what the Buddha said: “Pain or suffering arises thru desire or craving and that to be free of pain we need to cut the bonds of desire.”

:wink:

66

No. This is incorrect. I will cite Donati Ars Grammatica and also Ørberg for reference.

For example, the first line in Ovidii Amores III.2:

Non ego nobilium sedeo studiosus equorum

is divided syllablically in this way:

No-ne-go-no-bi-li-um-se-de-o-stu-di-o-su-se-quo-rum

This is just how it is. If you have it that it must be otherwise, well, heh, that would explain your resistence.

[quote=“Lucus”]
You ask me to reconsider the Diomedes quote. I wil quote your excellent translation:
For although it [the M] is written, it is not pronounced, as with ‘quousque tandem abutere’.
What more could one need? M is not pronounced when a vowel follows.
[/quote]

Reread the whole quote. Repeto, totum relegas.

I have, and stand by my reasoning. You better spell it out for me because I’m not getting what you wish me to gather.

67

Allen says (p.79) “elision was not invariably the rule in classical times”. Does that not fit more with what I was saying and with which you disagreed? Are you beginning to spot that elision and contraction and synizesis are significantly different things, with different implications, I suspect, for whether or not word-ending-M was just an orthographic convention or more accurately signified a sound closer to either M or N.

Quod dicit Allen, nonne simile est cuius dixi et quocum dissedisti? Incipisne nunc videre ut elisio, synizesis, contractio differunt una ex aliâ. Omnis implicationes dissimiles habet, ut suspicor, ad quaestionem utrum M litteram in extremitate dictionis solùm nota orthographica sit, an sonum litteram M vel N continentem accuratiùs significet.

68

Right. Variants include synizesis and contraction. NOT hiatus.

Does that not fit more with what I was saying and with which you disagreed?

Well, I believe I used “elision” as a broad term encompassing elision, contraction, synizesis, and in fact any junction of two vowels between words into one syllable. I already admitted to that confusion: “I said the same, I think [as Allen]. If not, then I wasn’t being clear. So I clearly state: elision, contraction, and synizesis are the default for Latin, as it is for Italian, for the sake of example.”

69

But they are not classical, Luke! At non fontes classici sunt. Jocor! :wink:

And where is the Donatus citation? Ubi sunt verba Donati?

Here’s what you don’t see in the Diomedes quote. Ecce quod non vides apud Diomedem:

*Nota benè:
Diomedes defines ‘distinctio’ (K, i, p.437) as “a sign, akin to a dot, of termination of meaning [a full stop] or an expectant pause [comma]”.
Diomedes distinctionem definit, ut “apposito puncto nota finiti sensus vel pendentis mora” [note this has the same sense as ‘suspensio’]

70

Yeah, you missed something:

Otherwise, we do pronounce the M when followed by a vowel that can take the place of a consonant [i.e., j or v], such as in ‘cum Iuno aeternam’

He says that M is pronounced when it comes before j or v — they aren’t vowels, but consonants. They just share the shape of the vowels i and u. Clear now?

71

Of course, Luke, I did propose the quote and translate it, but Diomedes ALSO says that, if you leave an expectant pause between a word-final M and the next vowel (not J or V) the M can INDEED be sounded before that vowel (not J or V) and everything sounds hunky-dorey. He gives as his example the two words 'urbem inferretque" which belong together but have a little pause between because of their occurrence straddling two lines of verse. Here the M is between E and I (not J) and is sounded.

As you are, good sir (“part of a long train of thought…from older, past grammarians”, that is)! I suspect your opinion about ‘h’ relies on Herman (Vulgar Latin, Ch.4, Phonetic Evolution, 2. Consonants, pp.38,39). A closer reading of Vox Latina would persuade you that Pompeius is wholly trustworthy.
Ut tu es, bone vir! Sententia tua, ut suspicor, authori Herman operi (nomine Vulgar Latin) confidat. Accuratiùs Vox Latina legito et Pompeium solidè credibilem esse persuadeberis.

Best to read all. Meliùs legere in toto.



Post scriptum
It is not being HYPERCORRECTIVE to put a H where it is supposed to be. It is hypercorrect to put a H which it isn’t supposed to be but it SOUNDS like it could be, if one didn’t know any better. Writing ‘hominem’ is not hypercorrective, nor is pronouncing it. Hypercorrective it is to say or write ‘hinsidias’ for ‘insidias’ (Allen, Vox, p.44).
Hypercorrigendum vitium non est si H litteram dignè ponitur, ut vides cum “hominem”, sed indignè, sicut ‘hinsidias’ pro ‘insidias’.

72

But if the ‘h’ of Pompeius were a normal Classical Latin aspiration on the vowel, why should “Musa amavit” be any different from “Musa habuit” with a hiatus? It shouldn’t be. This is not made clear from the primary source. It appears that his ‘h’ may be pronounced with too much force.

Altho this is wandering into the realm of opinion.

73

This has all been very interesting. Definitely a good exercise for the mind. Now, I’ve tried to follow the reasoning up til now, but I have a few questions I’d like to ask:

Who or what determines a usage in Latin to be correct or incorrrect? Do late grammarians such as Quintilian or Priscian count as authorities? Are poets of equal authority as grammarians? Is usage rather the standard? If so, is it all relative or does one usage (e.g. in the Classical era) determine all others?

If we are to take usage as that which determines what is correct or incorrect within a specific time frame, then I would think that writing and pronouncing the “h” in times of St. Augustine is, in fact, hypercorrection. ¿No? If, on the other hand, grammarians are to be our guides, do we have such authorities for every major era of the Latin language or just the late period?

These questions came to mind when reading all the arguments in this thread, and I believe go to the heart of the issue. Anyone cares to address at least one of them, especially the first? :stuck_out_tongue:

74

Lucus, who believes there in truth in this matter, imagines there to be a correct way of speaking Latin, and it is the classical way. This is what all the grammarians believed. That is why they more or less all say the same thing and appeal to the same authorities. That is why, if you carefully examine what each says about myotacism and hiatus, for example, you will see that Priscian, Diomedes, Servius, Consentius, Longus, Donatus and Quintilian (who is definitely classical period, by the way), all agree about what the issues are, and their written sources on this overlap and go back to the Greeks and Isocrates (436-338 BCE) on this. You can also see one using the other as an authority, chronologically. In a sense, you cannot say any one of them is an authority on Roman speech generally (I mean vulgar Latin in particular), because they are all teaching grammar and polite pronunciation for their own day, but they are still teaching with reference to classical written sources. That means they are teaching a recommended style of pronunciation and, on many counts that differs from vulgar Latin and all its varieties. Generally, they themselves are reading from the same authorities, but you will notice, also, that it is possible to take a slightly different position on the various solutions to the issues, --for example Quintilian’s position on hiatus (1st century CE) differs slightly from Cicero’s (Ist century BCE).

Language is a form of of communication open to all, and because open to all, it evolves and hybridizes over time in a Darwinian fashion, more markedly in pronunciation usually than in grammar. Scholastic effort, driven by the authority of the written word, was to keep one variety, standard Latin, alive for a very long time. Scholarship also, however, has permeable boundaries and, to an extent, the scholastic search for truth is influenced by its environment, including political influence and regional variations in languages outside of Latin and in vulgar Latin. The consequence is that elements of taught pronunciation, even in the tradition of scholastic Latin, did change over time, to the point where standardization in pronunciation of Latin was called for under Charlemagne (747-814 CE), so great had become the different regional styles of pronouncing ‘standard’ Latin.

In answer to your first question, the text determines authority in the scholastic tradition,–the more ancient the text the more authoritative, and the more authoritative a text’s written sources of reference, the more authoritative that text becomes. Also in certain areas there was a pecking order (more expressed within the scholastic tradition as time went on), with Hebrew biblical sources having precedence over Greek and then Latin before everything else in terms of linguistic ‘perfection’. What complicates things is that, even within the scholastic tradition authorities can either contradict each other or not be clear about questionable matters. Another complication is that transmitted texts can be lost or subject to variation as a result of either human error or the effects of translation from one language into another,–some translators are better than others, after all, and some scholars are better than others, too! Outside of the scholastic tradition, practice governs what is correct usage or not, backed up by political and economic power or by the promise of it (by need or by fear, in other words).

My preference is for exploring diversity of practice both outside and inside the schools and to look for the reasons for change and difference. I believe in the need to seek simplicity in a complicated world in order to achieve personal well-being, but I also believe it IS a complicated world and that opinion and practice vary and will always vary, and that appreciating how diverse things are is essential to appreciating the power of simplicity. I suspect Lucus and I have similar ends. I would not describe mine as ‘Truth’, though, but I do suspect they are similar. Certainly, we love discourse. And we go about achieving our ends differently, with different assumptions and background experiences, --which is to be celebrated, I believe. That doesn’t, of course, let either of us off the hook in terms of being mistaken about particulars and using language ourselves in muddled ways in the games we play.

Your question about the poets is an exciting one, Amadeus. What the grammarians say about language in poetry is very pertinent to the current discussion and goes to the heart indeed of differences expressed above between Lucus and me. Too important to deal with quickly. I should think long and hard about that and read much more before I try to give my response, because my own feelings on this are more intuitive and based on skimmed reading of the grammarians, --searching for what I hope to find rather than for what is there. Obviously, I would love to play the fool on this topic but give me time to get into costume and into character.

75

Unless you are looking at the source, you can’t say the source is unclear. Best to say the selected quote is unclear, if you think so.
Nisi ad manum fons primarius tibi est, non debes dicere eum de hac re obscurum esse. Meliùs dicere verba citata obscura esse, si sic quidem putes.

The purpose of hiatus is to express clearly the word break between words ending and beginning with vowels. The problem with hiatus is that it breaks the flow of natural speech slightly inelegantly. Now, as long as ‘h’ is audibly discernable in ‘musa habuit’, where the first word ends and the second begins will thereby be discernable, so the need for hiatus is lessened, i.e., a lesser hiatus is required to facilitate understanding. You do not need excessive force on the H to achieve that, and Pompeius does not imply anywhere that you do.

Ponitur hiatus inter dictiones ut interstitium inter dictiones vocalibus terminantes incipientesque intellegitur. Vitium esse habitur cum facit hiatus ut dictiones non eleganter fluunt. Litterâ H in ‘musa habuit’ intellectâ, eo modo distinctio inter dictiones confirmatur et opus hiatum habendo diminuitur, id est, intellectus hiatum breviorem requiret. Non opus est magnus spiritus ut hoc proficias, nec Pomeius id usquam suadet.

76

Concerning elision et syllable division in English and Latin.
De elisio et dictionum divisione in syllabas Latinè et Anglicé.

Professor Higgins would agree wholeheartedly!! Corde cum consilio hoc concurrat Professor Henricus Higgins!!



I believe, though, I’m wholly wrong about compounds with the preposition “ex”, because ‘x’ strictly represents the sounds of two letters (Allen & Greenough say ks, cs, gs, hs, even chs in Greek)
Perperà m autem adusque de verbis compositis cum “ex” praepositione dixi, ut opinor, quià ‘x’ littera rectè duarum sonos litterarum habet (utrum ‘ks’, an ‘cs’, an ‘gs’, an ‘hs’, an ‘chs’, apud Lewis atque Short)

[Nota benè
What I said above about Hebrew above Greek in the textual scholastic pecking order only applies in the Christian period, of course. That historical Greek texts outranked Latin modern ones in the classical period was an acknowledgement only grudgingly given by some, and not at all given by others, outside the schools.

Certè, quod suprà dixi de scriptis Hebraeis, quae opera Graeca superabant, solùm ad aevum Christianum pertinet. Non nulli quoque extrà scholas aevo classico qui vel aemulè vel nullo modò scriptores Graecos antiquos in philologiâ Romanis modernis superiores habebant.]

77

Adrian my friend, you act as if you know nothing about Latin poetry and scansion (or Greek for that matter — maybe you just haven’t gotten around to studying them yet). This is the most fundamental part: knowing where syllables begin and end. When you know the beginning and end of a syllable, you know if a syllable is long or short. If a syllable ends in a consonant, it is long. If it ends in a vowel, it may be short, unless the vowel is long, in which case it is long. It is mere convention, but the selfsame convention exsists in singing (for example if you look at the score to, say, the score to The Marriage of Figaro, you will see the very same syllabary), but I urge you to understand this convention.

The other convention you are noting, and confusing for pronunciation, is that found in dictionaries and other reference or didactic tools, whereby the elements are divided to demonstrate to the learner etymology. But that has no relevance on pronunciation, or syllable division in poetry.

78

I am uneasy declaring a Latin usage to be “correct” or “incorrect” — the only thing I’ve called “incorrect” was Adrian’s syllable division in pronunciation. It’s extremely relative, and ultimately all changes thru time and variations in pronunciation are relevant, even “correct.” The proper context is what needs to be addressed. So, any Latin speaker, in his own context, at that moment, is in a state of relative truth. It depends what scope you are gazing thru: is it all Latin ever? Is it Classical Latin as we accept its convention ancient and modern? Is it Late Latin? That will define your boundaries of “correct” and “incorrect” — or, better, “conventional” and “unconventional.”



If we are to take usage as that which determines what is correct or incorrect within a specific time frame, then I would think that writing and pronouncing the “h” in times of St. Augustine is, in fact, hypercorrection. ¿No? If, on the other hand, grammarians are to be our guides, do we have such authorities for every major era of the Latin language or just the late period?

It definitely seems unconventional. :slight_smile: It would be counter to the contemporary vulgar Latin.

79

Well that’s blatantly untrue! I’ll speak for myself, thank you. :wink: (I find it amusing that Adrian has pinned me down and identified me with a position that is quite contrary to my point of view — it explains his vehemence!) The absolute truth, that is to say, the neutral fact is that sounds have been uttered and their pronunciations recorded over thousands of years by Romans and their posterity. Any subset standard of those is merely that, and cannot be said to be more “correct” or less. I have, however, emphasized the convention of Classical Latin, since it is the Latin standard, as it was to the ancient grammarians, as Adrian notes, and is also the standard today. So when one asks, “how was/is final -m pronounced?” I respond according to the Classical Latin convention that is hodiern and ancient.

80

I can only apologize to you, Luke, if you have changed your mind on this since the time we debated in November. Then, you would not retract the statement that the pronunciation of the Nuntii Latini broadcasters was “in error”. I take it that you have retracted, in which case I state publicly, as I agreed I would, “I sound like William Shakespeare”. :smiley: (See “pronunciation used at LATINUM PODCAST”, http://discourse.textkit.com/t/help-requested-aperto/55/1 in which we also debated about ‘elision’.)

De hac re, si sententiam permutavisti cùm mense novembris disputavimus, meam culpam purgo. Eo tempore, tua verba recantare pronuntiationem nuntiatorum Nuntiorum Latiniorum in errorem esse non te volebas. Credo te recantavisse; ideò, ut sic facere polliticus sum, publicè declaro, “Shakespearis similis pronuntiatio mea”. :smiley:

By the way, that’s the third time you have accused me of motives that I don’t feel at all. Unless I put ‘smilies’ all over the place, how can I persuade you that I am not seething with “vehemence”, or “wrapped up”, or “emotionally invested” or “deeply attached” to certain sources? :smiley: I think you’re a lovely, smart fellow, Luke, but if I were to suggest that you were the one feeling those emotions and you were not, would you not be surprised? I enjoy arguing with you. I would be loathe to stop. I thought you got my sense of humour and mischief or kidding.

Ter me accusavisti, obiter, affectiones habendi quas non habeo, ut acritas, obsessio, largè affectus et fontibus aliquibus perafficticius esse, Quomodò te suadeam aliter, nisi ubiquaque notas subridentes ponam? :smiley: Te amabilem doctumque esse puto, Luce. Si tales sententias te habere accusavero cum non habueris, nonne perturbatus sis? Tecum ratiocinari me placet. Desinare nolim. Credidi ut jocos et ludos vel facinora meos intellexisti.