language and mind

August 28, 2011

Me proper tongue

Filed under: language, language processing, language use — teresapelka @ 12:58 am

There is no agreement in the present day neurology on the human senses, their number, role, and classification. Various language cultures would have the secondary brain receptive areas for gnostic regions; some would try to find one gnostic area to explain the whole brain. It’s gotta be good for one to know where they are for one to know what they are speaking about. ;)

The mixup becomes serious when it comes to the tongue. Touch happens to be associated with exteroceptors. The tongue may be better off in the mouth.

I am definitely not an advocate of sorting out everything about the human being, especially in any absolute manner. My thing here is about the phonetic placement methods in speech training or re-training. Obviously, if the thing works for you, you go for it. All along, think whose tongue your tongue really is. My tongue has got to be mine to be my tongue, to me.

This is where some attention for the dispraised proprioception might help. Phonetic placement would put most emphasis on touch. There are touch receptors in the tongue and they are very sensitive. Yet, being touched in the tongue can be invasive and unpleasant (discomfort may make language learning a fiasco).

Speaking gives a much different sensation from that of being touched in the tongue. Further, however the tongue may touch the teeth or the palate for some speech sounds – what about vowels? They may be pronounced without occlusion.

The tricky part about hearing is that it is part intracranial. Most kids produce ‘crazy’ and loud sounds, which could be actually part practicing this inner hearing capacity. It is not gone with adulthood.

Speaking deliberately quiet with ear plugs – easy, your eardrums are not gonna like touch, either – can help realize the ‘inner ear’. A still better environment could be water. Just remember to switch the jacuzzi off and keep your head comfortably supported, obviously your face above the water and your ears in it. Full swimsuit, you can take the goggles off should you want to do some reading. I could also ‘sell’ here the laziest way to swim in the world ever. You can lie your back on the water just minding to hold some air in your lungs (and breathing, of course). It is going to keep you on the surface of a quiet lake. Whisper is good for the more advanced. :)

Vowels happen to be low, mid, and high. Vowel height seems to have given rise to some of the differences in contemporary interpretations of Latin. According to one of the schools, your read the letter /c/ as [k] before low vowel letter representations (please feel welcome to see ‘The game of the ziggurat’). The contemporary ‘aftermath’ could be the way people say /cat/, /cost/, /coast/, etc. Before the mid and high vowel letter representations, you’d pronounce /c/ as [c] or [ts], dependent on transcription.

This stipulated ancient Latin speech sound would be similar to the way you say /tsar/ in English. German has it in /zeit/, ‘time’; American has it in /zeitgeist/, ‘the general intellectual, etc. climate of an era’. Again, the contemporary ‘aftereffect’ could be the way people say /cell/, /cinema/, or /cycle/, there being a degree of overlap between /y/ and /i/ in Modern English. Another school would have the Latin /c/ for [k] regardless of aftereffects. ;)[1]

Nature has had it that the brain needs to come before the tongue in speech. The phonetic placement method could not work for me. Generally, practicing with focus on hearing and tongue position can bring better effects.

‘Travelers in Grammar – The Whole Journey’, http://travelingrammar.com/.

[1] The disputed /u/ is reported to have developed from /v/. The Latin /c/ may be considered to have been interpreted as /k/ before non-vowel letter symbols, too. The Latin ‘caelum’, ‘sky’, ‘heaven’ would be a [tselum] or, more contemporarily, [tchelum]. The two letters stand for one sound, the mid [e]. The mid [e] also happened to be spelled as /oe/. According to older versions of the Latin alphabet, /cujus/ or /cuius/ ‘(of) which’, ‘whose’, ‘who’, ‘what’ – dependent on the time and epoch – could be transcribed as /cvivs/, for example. Latin alphabet evolved over ages, its knowledge belonging initially mostly with augurs, who kept things complicated enough.

About these ads

13 Comments »

  1. Actually, in Classical Latin the C was always hard /k/, except in some abbreviations where it represented /g/, as in C. for Gaius. It was Ecclesiastical (Catholic) Latin that changed this.

    V and U are indeed the same letter in Latin – V was used in inscriptions (because it was easy to carve in stone), and U was used in handwriting. It could represent either the vowel U, as we know and love today, or the consonant W.

    In Classical Latin, OE, AE and E were all pronounced differently (unlike in Ecclesiastical). E sounded sort of like the “ay” in “day”, or more closely like the Spanish E. OE sounded like the “oi” in “oil”. AE sounded like the word “eye”.

    Comment by Nick — November 7, 2011 @ 12:15 pm

    • /c/ was not always [k] in Latin. How would you read ‘caelum’, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dcaelum1

      U and V are not the same letters in Latin, Gaius was /g/, as there was Germanicus. What is your school of Latin, if I could ask – where did you learn?

      My approach is morphophonemic, not chronology and proper names.

      Comment by teresapelka — November 7, 2011 @ 10:26 pm

      • Caelum? Using my admittedly rusty IPA, it would be ['caj.lũː], in which c sounds like K, aj sounds like “eye”, and ũ is a nasalized U.

        U and V are indeed the same letters. This is one of the first things *any* student should learn. If you refuse to take my word for it, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation , which agrees with me completely, although the article itself is incomplete.

        Of *course* Gaius was spelt with a G. But, before the letter G was created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G#History) by the old magister Ruga, it was spelt with a C, as all words that had either a K or G sound were. Even after the spelling changed, it continued to be abbreviated with a C. See the very first paragraph here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius

        Where did I learn Latin? I began through correspondence with American School, and then continued on my own with Adler. I use the Internet as a textbook, although I take proper steps to ensure that it isn’t feeding me trash. I take my questions to skilled Latinists from around the world at latindiscussion.com/forum, where I happen to be a moderator.

        Anyway, I’ve given you a few Wiki links, each of which is well sourced. If you aren’t satisfied, I will post more links from reputable Latinists.

        I didn’t come here to argue – I simply wanted to correct your assertions about the ancient pronunciation. If you haven’t studied it, why are you arguing about it?

        Comment by Nick — November 17, 2011 @ 1:01 pm

  2. I should have written ['kaj.lũː] – /c/ is not used in IPA for Latin.

    I’m sorry, I was in a bit of a huff. I shouldn’t have posted in such a rude manner. My assertions stand, but please forgive the tone in which I composed them.

    Comment by Nick — November 17, 2011 @ 1:28 pm

  3. Triple post power!

    Elaborating on my last post: I especially apologize for this comment, “If you haven’t studied it, why are you arguing about it?”

    It is clear that you have studied. But, you have studied in a different area than I have – I aim to learn the Latin that Caesar and Cicero spoke, which is what is considered to be “classical” Latin, and is pronounced differently than the later ecclesiastical Latin, which you seem to specialize in.

    Comment by Nick — November 17, 2011 @ 1:48 pm

  4. Hi Nick,

    Apologies accepted as for the huff; thank you for all the time you gave to answer.

    I have to disagree with your picture of my Latin as ecclesiastical. Should my Latin be ecclesiastical, then all contemporary English is. Would you say [k]erebrum, [k]erebral? Why? Print was devised only a few hundred years ago.

    I do realize this is a commonplace suspicion, but Henry VIII changed not only wives, it seems. I’d rather keep my head.

    I learned Latin in a Catholic country, but never at church. I think contemporary morphophonemics really would challenge the pronunciations as you posit.

    IPA (the International Phonetic Alphabet) happens to vary (it’s alphabets, sometimes), but it’s rather consistent on [e], [ɛ], and [l], as well as [j] versus [ɪ]. I don’t understand why [j.] in your ['caj.lũː]. Why should the [m] go?

    I don’t agree you could spell Ovid as Ouid, and I don’t think you could blame the Norman that is, the Conqueror (I really don’t know sometimes, why the Lackland if the Conqueror, as to preserved attribution).

    I hope not to happen in a time of huff… :)

    T

    Comment by teresapelka — November 18, 2011 @ 12:37 am

  5. For cerebrum, I would use a hard C in Latin. In English, it is indisputably a soft C. Cerebral is strictly English. I don’t understand your reference to print, though. The Romans didn’t need print to write documents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_cursive) and carve inscriptions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_square_capitals) that we can still see today. Incidentally, both of those links illustrate that ancient Romans did not differentiate between U and V.

    As to “why”? Simply because that is the correct classical pronunciation. Although palatalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_C#History) cause C to soften before front vowels in Late Latin, which was later passed on to Latin’s descendants, and from them to English, the fact is that the Romans of the Golden and Silver Ages had no concept of a soft C (unless you count the abbreviation C. for Gaius, and other name abbreviations).

    Linguists have reconstructed the pronunciation of Classical Latin based on several factors, such as Roman poetry, the Romance languages, cognates, borrowings from Latin by Greek and other languages, among other things. For example, the Greeks wrote Caesar’s name as Καῖσαρ – this could not, by any stretch of the imagination, have been pronounced with some sort of “soft kappa”.

    The /j/ is there because it is the less prominent part of the diphthong AE, which means that it should be represented as an approximant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphthong#Falling_and_rising). The M disappears because it either simply stands as a nasalization marker at the ends of words, or was pronounced very weakly after the nasalized vowel. This is evidenced by, among other things, classical poetry. How would “… litora multum ille et terris iactatus et alto …”, and countless other examples where final M and the vowel before it must be elided, possibly scan if final M had been strong and immovable?

    You don’t think that Ovid can be Ouid? See these:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=1BUjAQAAMAAJ&pg=PR27&dq=ouidius&hl=ja&ei=MtDFTsv0KoGy2QWn8P38CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFQQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=ouidius&f=false

    http://books.google.com/books?id=PWjkQwAACAAJ&dq=ouidius&hl=ja&ei=MtDFTsv0KoGy2QWn8P38CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ

    http://books.google.com/books?id=tQgMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA275&dq=ouidius&hl=ja&ei=d9DFTsPENsSQ2gWsqZmvCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=ouidius&f=false

    Finally, the fact is that I didn’t just make all of this up. This is the accepted standard, accepted by linguist and Latinist alike, and taught in most reputable schools and colleges. Wheelock*, Oxford**, Vox Latina***, and all other modern textbooks on Classical Latin agree. I have posted all kinds of references – how can they simply be ignored?

    * http://wheelockslatin.com/chapters/introduction/introduction.html

    **http://books.google.com/books?id=k5oXGuCKqc0C&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=oxford+latin+course+pronunciation&source=bl&ots=-II2mYUHa7&sig=N8f7Au3e1SLweQBZOGhmx0VSIuw&hl=ja&ei=GNLFTr-yDqGA2AWL2KmFCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

    ***http://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=vox+latina&hl=ja&ei=udLFTqM0kIi3B8SQgYIM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=consonants&f=false

    Comment by Nick — November 18, 2011 @ 3:39 am

    • Hi Nick,

      You want to tell me you think ‘cerebrum’ is Latin and ‘cerebral’ is not consistent? If it is, it is paradigmatic. This means that before print made its success, people spoke and remembered assimilates, also in English. English has been influenced by Latin considerably.

      I wouldn’t learn from some of your reputable sources. I was in England and I got myself a course in Latin there. What I got was ‘lovely’ babbling. Babbling to have cost me 50 (really) English pounds. I was not happy with it.

      You are a bit strange with your quoting Wikipedia. There is Vicipaedia Latina http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagina_prima. By the way, would you say [weni, widi, wiki]?

      Greeks can’t be taken for just phoneticians. I mean their alphabet was not just a phonetic script of another language and it was not Latin, obviously. It looks like they did not have this Latin sound. They had the Kirke and the kyklos. Assimilation still happens.

      T

      Comment by teresapelka — November 18, 2011 @ 11:12 pm

  6. The written word “cerebrum” exists both in English and Latin, although the are pronounced differently in each language. “Cerebral” does not exist in Latin, but in English. Just as we say /ˈmɛk.sɪ.kəʊ/ (English) instead of [ˈme̞xiko̞] (Spanish), so too does the pronunciation of Latin-derived words in English differ from the way that the original words were actually pronounced in Latin itself.

    English has had very little direct influence from Latin, but rather this influence tends to come indirectly from Romance, such as French. By the time Latin-derived words had become a part of our language, the classical pronunciation had already become extinct.

    Long before print, though, literature was still preserved by scribes. We have literature going back to Homer in the 8th century BC – all of the classical spellings were passed down by hand. Even as pronunciations changed, the spellings often remained the same.

    I won’t comment on the part that you have removed from your post, except to say that I am glad that you *have* removed it. But, please, if you will not accept any of my sources, please show me just one Latin grammar published in the last century that says that the Romans of the classical era pronounced Latin as you seem to assert that they did. It is true that Latin was eventually pronounced as you pronounce it, but that came in the middle ages and is considered to be ecclesiastical, even for contexts that having nothing to do with the Catholic church. And don’t get me wrong – I would not say that it is wrong to use the ecclesiastical method, but rather that it is wrong to assume that the Romans used it as well.

    I don’t use Vicipaedia very often due to its low quality. The standard of Latin is quite low, with neologisms being used quite freely and grammar being regularly simplified or butchered, and articles are usually completely unsourced. Add to this, due to the small number of contributors, blunders will go for very long times before being corrected, if they ever are! It would be very good if a good number of experts (both in Latin and in the subject matter of the articles) contributed to the project, but as it stands it is nowhere near as good as the English Wikipedia. But, since you did mention it, this is from Vicipaedia:

    Littera A B C D E F G H I K L M N O P Q R S T V X Y Z
    Nomen Latinum ā bē cē dē ē ef gē hā ī kā el em en ō pē qū er es tē ū ex ī Graeca zēta
    Pronuntiatus Classicus (API) /aː beː keː deː eː ef ɡeː haː iː kaː el em en oː peː kʷuː er es teː uː eks iː ˈɡraiːka ˈzeːta/

    (http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abecedarium_Latinum)

    The fact that it supports my assertion doesn’t mean anything to me, though – Vicipaedia is a hit-and-miss affair.

    The Greeks had no quarrels with starting words with multiple consonants, as we can see from clusters like ΠΤ, ΠΝ, Ξ, Ψ, Ζ (the last three of which are clusters in and of themselves, representing sounds like “ks”, “ps” and “dz”, although some experts say that the latter might be “zd” instead). A Greek could have written something closer to “ts” than K, such as ΤΣ (ts) or simply Σ (s). But, if the transcriptions of Greeks under Roman imperial rule can’t be trusted, then why do you seem to say that English pronunciation of Latin-derived words, two thousand years removed and borrowed from proxies such as the Normans, can be trusted?

    Now, to repeat the most important part of this post: If you will not accept the word and evidence of all of the sources that I posted, please show me a grammar that expressly says that the Romans of the golden era pronounced V as the English V, and C as anything other than K or G. Ecclesiastical references don’t count, because I do not dispute the existence of your pronunciation, but rather the time and place.

    That’s all for now, except for the fact that I do indeed pronounce “veni, vidi, vici” with a W sound, with a K sound in the last word. If a medieval writer had penned the phrase, I might use the medieval pronunciation for authenticity, but Caesar was a first-century BC Roman.

    Comment by Nick — November 20, 2011 @ 12:03 am

  7. Ah, I didn’t notice the κιρκος and κυκλος comment. Latin borrowed these from Greek, not the other way around – I don’t think there is any Hellenist alive who would suggest that they were pronounced with anything other than a hard K sound in Greek. That was the only sound that kappa could make.

    Comment by Nick — November 20, 2011 @ 12:09 am

    • As you admit, ‘the written word “cerebrum” exists both in English and Latin, although the are pronounced differently in each language. “Cerebral” does not exist in Latin, but in English.’

      You say both ‘cerebrum’ and ‘cerebral’ with [s] initially, although one of them has been formed in a language culture different from that of the origin. This is what a language paradigm is. The way to form words shows language regularities. The regularity here is to pronounce /c/ as [s] before [e], a mid vowel. [s] could be considered an assimilate of [ts]. If you think how you read /c/, you’ll notice you have it for [s] with [e] or [ɪ]. You have it for [k] with [Ʌ] or [o]. Vowels obviously happen to be back and front, too.

      You say, ‘English has had very little direct influence from Latin, but rather this influence tends to come indirectly from Romance, such as French. By the time Latin-derived words had become a part of our language, the classical pronunciation had already become extinct.’

      This is what could be missing from movies about Henry VIII – his saying that it was the Norman to contaminate true Latin, therefore another woman’s head could be off. ;)

      The alphabet you use to write in English is the Latin alphabet. This is much influence.

      The paradigmatic regularities hold for English words of Latin origin, still. EN ‘cell’ < L 'cella'; EN 'cave' < L 'cava', etc.

      I can find links to grammar books telling about pronouncing /c/ as [ts] and /v/ as [v]. I learned in Poland. Importantly, Polish does not have these graphemic equivalences at all. You use /c/ for [ts] always, /k/ for [k], and /w/ for [v] just the same – always. /v/ belongs with foreign words in Polish. This is English to have the grapheme equivalency allowing for a /c/ to be pronounced as [s] or [k], etc.

      Actually, you can try yourself, one of the names is Lidia Winniczuk, http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidia_Winniczuk

      There seems to be a regularity in Italian, too, http://www.proz.com/forum/pronunciation/34393-pronunciation_of_latin-page2.html

      Just looked up – there’s no [ts] or /c/ in Greek, still, they say. There is no letter-to-letter correspondence with Latin, either http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/writingresearch/f/howtospell.htm

      German has /w/ for [v]. /w/ was formed from /v/. /z/ happens to pronounced as [ts].

      T

      Comment by teresapelka — November 20, 2011 @ 12:57 am

  8. It is clear that this is going nowhere. I feel that a Latinist should be open to accept corrections based on the ocean of knowledge produced by classicists and linguists around the world, rather than insisting that “since English is pronounced like English, and it uses a modified Latin alphabet, then Latin must have also been pronounced like English. Also, remember Henry VIII and his many wives and print and cerebral and Polish, and the fact that I don’t want to be beheaded, which together prove that Cicero pronounced his name ‘Tsitsero’.” If that doesn’t reflect your thinking, it is at least how your arguments come across.

    That said, I will post this last response, not so much for you as for those observing, addressing your last post and summing up the position of classicists around the world, and then I shall bid you adieu.

    «As you admit, ‘the written word “cerebrum” exists both in English and Latin, although the are pronounced differently in each language. “Cerebral” does not exist in Latin, but in English.’»

    Yes. Note well that I said “the WRITTEN word”. The spoken word is different for both languages.

    «You say both ‘cerebrum’ and ‘cerebral’ with [s] initially, although one of them has been formed in a language culture different from that of the origin. This is what a language paradigm is. The way to form words shows language regularities. The regularity here is to pronounce /c/ as [s] before [e], a mid vowel. [s] could be considered an assimilate of [ts]. If you think how you read /c/, you’ll notice you have it for [s] with [e] or [ɪ]. You have it for [k] with [Ʌ] or [o]. Vowels obviously happen to be back and front, too. »

    Of course. But why are you talking about English, which sounds nothing at all like Latin? If the point lies in this part ([s] could be considered an assimilate of [ts]), then that reflects on Romance, not Latin.

    «You say, ‘English has had very little direct influence from Latin, but rather this influence tends to come indirectly from Romance, such as French. By the time Latin-derived words had become a part of our language, the classical pronunciation had already become extinct.’

    This is what could be missing from movies about Henry VIII – his saying that was the Norman to contaminate true Latin, therefore another woman’s head could be off. ;) »

    I’m not interested in movies about Henry VIII, nor in the person himself. The traditional English pronunciation of Latin was originally that of Late Latin (which, through the natural changes of a living language, had long deviated from Classical Latin), and then was later heavily influenced by French. In Henry VIII’s time, the classical pronunciation of Latin had already been forgotten – neither the Catholic Church, nor Henry VIII, nor anybody else spoke Latin as Cicero had. As such, Henry VIII is completely irrelevant to the point.

    The reconstructed classical pronunciation, though I am not sure exactly when it was so fully understood as it is now, didn’t start to take hold until the late 1800s, long after Henry VIII.

    «The alphabet you use to write in English is the Latin alphabet. This is much influence.»

    English really needs its own alphabet – we have far more than five vowel sounds, and more than twenty-one consonants. Add to this the irregularities introduced by French and other languages, and our written language is a mess.

    But, the reason for this mess that is written English is that we have literature going clear back to Chaucer in the 14th century. Although the written language of Chaucer is far different from the standard language of today, his spellings did have a huge effect on the standard spellings.

    There was a time when many of our now-silent letters were fully pronounced, as in “knight” and virtually any word with a silent E. Now, though, the spoken language has evolved while the written language remains frozen. But, we’re supposed to be talking about Latin.

    Our alphabet is not the Latin alphabet, but rather a modification of it. Our pronunciation of the alphabet reflects on Romance (due to its heavy influence on our language) and, more importantly, English itself.

    «The paradigmatic regularities hold for English words of Latin origin, still. EN ‘cell’ < L 'cella'; EN 'cave' < L 'cava', etc. »

    Yes, I speak English, I know the rules.

    «I can find links to grammar books telling about pronouncing /c/ as [ts] and /v/ as [v]. I learned in Poland. Importantly, Polish does not have these graphemic equivalences at all. You use /c/ for [ts] always, /k/ for [k], and /w/ for [v] just the same – always. /v/ belongs with foreign words in Polish. This is English to have the grapheme equivalency allowing for a /c/ to be pronounced as [s] or [k], etc.»

    Polish pronunciation of Polish is irrelevant to Latin.

    «Actually, you can try yourself, one of the names is Lidia Winniczuk, http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidia_Winniczuk»

    I tried to look up information on her "łacina bez pomocy Orbiliusza", but since Google Books only offers a very small preview of the book I was unable to establish any more than the fact that she uses either the ecclesiastical pronunciation or a modification of it. I was unable to find whether she claims that the Romans themselves spoke with this pronunciation, or if she did, what evidence or authority she invoked.

    However, it may be worth mentioning that I found this while trying to find information on her book:

    「"Orbiliusz" ujdzie, nie wiem jak wygląda "Vox latina", ale większość polskich podręczników to w najlepszym razie przyzwoite książki, większość z nich nigdy nie powinna zostać wydana :? . Dlatego po raz kolejny polecam anglojęzyczne podręczniki, których cała masa jest dostępna w internecie (wydane około 100 lat temu, więc legalnie, a wartość merytoryczną mają nie gorszą niż nowe). Tylko trzeba znać angielski na przyzwoitym poziomie.」

    Although I would accept (not necessarily as truth unless I saw significant evidence, but as a valid argument) a Polish textbook proposing your pronunciation if it invoked the authority of an expert who had promoted that method with some classical evidence, I would be wary to accept such unsourced claims at face value.

    All the same, I accept this as proof that some Polish pronounce it this way. I have yet to see anyone of position propose that the Golden Age Romans did, though.

    «There seems to be a regularity in Italian, too, http://www.proz.com/forum/pronunciation/34393-pronunciation_of_latin-page2.html»

    This page supports my position – they are talking about national pronunciations of Latin (such as the English, Italian and Polish traditional methods, the last of which you seem to say the Romans used) compared the the reconstructed classical pronunciation.

    «Just looked up – there’s no [ts] or /c/ in Greek, still, they say. There is no letter-to-letter correspondence with Latin, either http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/writingresearch/f/howtospell.htm»

    There's no /c/ (voiceless palatal plosive) in Latin or English, either. The point the writer was making was clearly that the Greeks had only one letter for /k/, unlike English which has three (C, K and Q), which happens to be identical in form to K.

    There is a fair amount of letter-to-letter correspondence between Latin and Greek, so far as consonants are concerned. Native Latin didn't have aspirated versions of C, T or P, and consonant clusters were much more conservative, but the Β, Γ,Δ, Κ, Λ, Μ, Ν, Ξ, Π, Σ, Τ and probably even Ρ corresponded very closely with B, G, D, C, L, M, N, X, P, S, T and R respectively. I say "very closely" because Γ before certain consonants has special exceptions, and there may have been very minor differences with some of the letters (maybe beta was slightly more or less powerful than B, for example).

    «German has /w/ for [v]. /w/ was formed from /v/. /z/ happens to pronounced as [ts].»

    I am well aware of the German pronunciation of the alphabet, and of the history of the alphabet itself. It is worth mentioning that Z was pronounced as TS in Latin as well (making it a double consonant, just like X, and making its syllable heavy in poetry), but the rest of that comment doesn't pertain to Classical Latin.

    Anyway, I will repost the links that I have referred to in previous posts as one last appeal to reason.

    CONCERNING U AND V:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_cursive
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_square_capitals

    http://books.google.com/books?id=1BUjAQAAMAAJ&pg=PR27&dq=ouidius&hl=ja&ei=MtDFTsv0KoGy2QWn8P38CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFQQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=ouidius&f=false

    http://books.google.com/books?id=PWjkQwAACAAJ&dq=ouidius&hl=ja&ei=MtDFTsv0KoGy2QWn8P38CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ

    http://books.google.com/books?id=tQgMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA275&dq=ouidius&hl=ja&ei=d9DFTsPENsSQ2gWsqZmvCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=ouidius&f=false

    CONCERNING G AND C:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G#History
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius

    CONCERNING SOFT C:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_C#History

    CONCERNING CLASSICAL PRONUNCIATION IN GENERAL:

    http://wheelockslatin.com/chapters/introduction/introduction.html

    http://books.google.com/books?id=k5oXGuCKqc0C&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=oxford+latin+course+pronunciation&source=bl&ots=-II2mYUHa7&sig=N8f7Au3e1SLweQBZOGhmx0VSIuw&hl=ja&ei=GNLFTr-yDqGA2AWL2KmFCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CG4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

    http://books.google.com/books?id=aexkj_0oj3MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=vox+latina&hl=ja&ei=udLFTqM0kIi3B8SQgYIM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=consonants&f=false

    And with all that, I say "vale". Naturally, I pronounce it /ˈwa.leː/ (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vale#Latin) ;)

    Comment by Nick — November 20, 2011 @ 5:51 pm

    • I agree the argument does not go anywhere sensible. Obviously, there have been the ages of the political background to Latin studies.

      My arguments are not any hodgepodge, as you are trying to present them. Yourself, you continue ignoring arguments about the influence of Latin on English and the lack of any convincing Greek evidence. I do not invoke Polish. I have made the reservation that the graphemic equivalence does not exist in Polish. You’re more political than linguistic, all the time.

      Just as well, anyone might say, ‘You say this like that in English, they say this like that in Russian. In Russian, they know better how to say things.’ Contemporary English and Russian could be compared to the ancient Latin and Greek with regard to written scopes.

      Why wait for the future generations or a cataclysm. Let us simply follow the pattern for reconstruction like the one for Latin from Greek. One might propose *bouque* for the English ‘book’ (remembering about the Norman). They have ‘буква’ in Russian…

      Millions of people and world round do not accept the school of Latin you represent. They are not all some ecclesiasts. They are not all just political, especially on grounds of some fabled reconstructions. I think this matters.

      I read Lidia Winniczuk. She did not want political divisions over Latin.

      Bidding adieu is fine, particularly if one party should remain insensitive to language arguments for the sake of extralinguistic factors.

      Comment by teresapelka — November 22, 2011 @ 1:05 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Customized WordPress Classic Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers

%d bloggers like this: