Why don’t many editions of Latin texts, such as Loebs, include macrons in the text? Aren’t macrons necessary for the proper pronunciation of Latin?
They’re not “necessary,” since the Romans themselves didn’t use them. I suspect the reason that they are not included is that since they weren’t present in the original work, someone would have to manually add all of them. That’s a lot of work (plus a lot of potential for error). Also, some people dislike them and find them to be a distraction.
I think it’s important to keep in mind that macra are not inherently in Latin words, but that they represent merely the long vowels. The long marks are just a means of remembering or learning where these long vowels occurr. I read a lot of Latin outloud and speak it frequently, and by so much exposure and practice I find I don’t need the long marks anymore in writing to remember the vowel lengths — it just comes naturally. Heavy exposure for beginners, however, to the macra is very important.
Therefore, Deccius, I recommend that you test yourself, and teach yourself the long vowels by writing the macra for certain passages or pages in that book you mention, checking in the dictionary, improving your knowledge of the language. The more you do this, the more you won’t need the macra anymore.
querela mea:
The dictionary I own, Cassell’s Latin-English, is an admirable work in many ways. For a dictionary of its size and price, I’ve been impressed by the breadth of idiom and the representation of ancient authors’ usage.
But…
It seems to be the practice of the editors not to include long or short vowel marks when the syllable is long by position, such as when two consonants follow it. The reasoning, I guess, is that students learning how to scan poetry don’t need to know the vowel length if the syllable is already long regardless of that length. No doubt this method has saved the editors a lot of trouble.
I’m somewhat less than impressed.
-David
I think vowels long by position are really pronunciated as short vowels, unless they are before -ns, -nf, or -gn sometimes… It is long by position just because it can be syllyble that is stressed.
Am I correct about these?
Well, I’ve always been a bit uncertain about some of this terminology.
Based on what one of my textbooks says, vowels before ns, nt, or nd are always short. But the entire syllable, since it ends in two consonants, must be long.
I’m pretty sure that vowels aren’t long by position - rather, syllables are long by position. The quantity of the vowel is independent of its environment, right?
My complaint was that the editors omit the short and long markers when the length of the syllable was clear (which does not determine the length of the vowel).
-David
Allen prefers the Sanskrit terms: long and short apply only to vowels, while heavy and light apply to syllables. It makes things much less confusing, though the Greeks and the Romans never figured this out.
Hm.. a nice distinction, though it may create a problem of its own. Heavy and light, at least to me, suggest syllable accent, which also of course figures into Latin phonetics. But I don’t suppose that’s too big a problem.
David
I think that the last time we had a discussion (one of many!) about macrons it seemed that those who studied in USA used them when writing and those who studied in UK or Australia didn’t. So the textbooks and edited editions of Latin texts probably reflect this. It’s like the order of noun declensions - it’s always N,V,A,G,D,Abl in UK books and a different order (which I can’t remember at the moment) in USA books. No doubt other European countries have their own way of presenting things. It’s part of the fun of studying - after a while you just get used to it. 
The order in the US is Nom., Gen., Dat., Acc., Abl. Vocative is typically not listed.
By the way, Carola, I have a question about your signature. While browsing through John Traupman’s Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency I came across a proverb that went something like this: Caesar non supra grammaticas (not sure about the declension), suggesting that no one’s above the law. Anyway, I’m not sure if this was a common proverb in classical times, but the quotation in your signature sounds awfully similar. What was the context of that quotation?
-David
For the record, the Romans ordered their declensions like this:
N, G, D, Ac, V, Ab.
The Greeks too, minus the ablative.
Are there any explanations or theories about why the vocative in Latin is restricted to one declension? It seems strange that a grammatical feature as distinctive as that would be as limited as it is.
Perhaps it has something to do with the association of names and the vocative: that is, we tend to address people, not things. And many names do fall in the 2nd declension. But, of course, no female names (or, at least, hardly any) fall within the 2nd declension. I think it’s safe to say there are no distinct vocative forms for women in Latin. (To be seen and not heard? Well, anyway.) Beyond that, the 3rd declension is another rich source for names, and there’s not a whisper of the vocative there.
The behavior of the vocative in Latin still seems odd to me, and I’m surprised I don’t seem to have read anything about it.
-David
Sorry for the rather late reply, a rather busy weekend! I saw a little story once about Sigismund,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund,_Holy_Roman_Emperor who was apparently the last German Emperor and led a rather interesting (!) life. At the Council of Constance, which was instrumental in solving the problem of having two popes at that time, a cardinal apparently tried to correct his Latin - and received the reply in my signature.
Somehow I could just imagine this rather warlike, bad tempered ruler finally getting sick of all the devious over-educated church men and putting them back in their place! 
Carola, does it say-
‘I am a Roman king and above correctness’?
Correctness is the best word I could think of for it.
No, it just refers to “grammar” as in the English sense (“grammatica” is the nominative singular). The meaning may have changed over the years (as words do in all languages) but I can’t find any dictionary meaning of “grammatica” other than “grammar” or “grammarian” or words with a similar meaning. Maybe the proverb about Caesar meant that even Caesar had to follow the rules of grammar, even though he might not have been bound by other rules. Any other thoughts on this?
Hi everyone,
I’ve just been reading through M.L. West’s book “Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique” and I found the following footnote which I thought you might be interested to read:
The use of metrical signs to guide the reader where there may be ambiguity is not to be scorned. [Footnote:] Why should we not, indeed, revive for classical Latin texts the apex [like the acute accent mark] with which the Romans themselves, for about three centuries from the age of Sulla, found it convenient to mark long vowels? We would not use it for every long vowel (nor did they), but it would be very useful for forms like ablative naturá, accusative plural ciuÃs, and for advertizing hidden quantities in such words as uóx, dÃxit.
~N
I find that a very reasonable idea.
Carola, thanks for sharing the source of that quotation! I can’t imagine what height of hubris Sigismund must have attained to claim that a king trumps the rules of grammar…
…on the other hand, it wasn’t too prudent of the bishop to correct his grammar.
-David
blah!!! I donneed no graamer shmaamer eether! Observe:
a?t howss r!un t.o night ¿we da.
poe Sigismund just wanted to be understood, and I’m sure the bishop (not E.!) understood him good enuff!
I can never understand why Hollywood did not make a movie about Sigismund - his life reads like a soap opera!
Whoops! Look like we have strayed off topic again! 