Andreas Posted: 25 Jul 2003 14:14
QUOTED FROM Mika … how do you pronounce Cicero in Latin? Do you say Seeserow or Keekerow? UNQUOTED
It would require a rather lengthy and technical argument to make the point. For the sake of brevity I will simply say: the so called pronuntiatio restituta or the 'classical' pronunciation which is being proposed everywhere these days as the only 'true' pronunciation, is based on dubious grounds. The fact is that no one can know with absolute certainty how Latin was pronounced in antiquity. We do know, however, that ecclesiastical Latin comes to us from antiquity without interruption. There is nothing 'second class' or 'ordinary' about it. The ecclesiastical or Roman pronunciation makes sense and it is based on historically valid assumptions.
Moreover, we know from experience that every language is pronounced with regional variations (try to have an American, an Australian, and a Scott pronounce ‘bright night). It would be unreasonable to assume that Latin was not subject to such regional variations. The pronunciation also varies from century to century. Plautus and Cicero most likely did not sound the same, being a few centuries apart. In our own times there are Latin speakers, such as the Pope’s latinist, Fr. Reginald Foster, who is an American, and others from countries such as Austria, France, Italy, etc., and one can immediately tell from the accent that they come from different backgrounds, yet they all speak the same Latin. This is natural. This entire quarrel over pronunciation is completely useless. I don’t care how one pronounces it as long as they allow me to pronounce it the way it has been handed down to me. I say Chichero and Chechilia. If they want to say Kikero and Kekilia, so be it. But please, no one should tell me that her/his is 'scientific' and mine is somehow 'second class' or 'not learned'.
Mikantero
I agree. Furthermore, it sounds much more beautiful to me. Undoubtedly, such great men of letters as Laurentius Valla & co., who started to "renovate" Latin, did what they did in bona fide, but the results do not convince me. Vale. [Vale = Latin for "bye"] Mika
robdick
Andreas,
as far as "restituted" pronunciations are concerned, I mostly agree with you. But the evidence is strong that, in essence, this pronunciation was being used at the time when history switched from B.C. to A.D. Of course, as you say, no language is pronounced the same way over a period of 3,000 years or more. For example, as early as the reign of Diocletian, there is evidence from mispellings on inscriptions that "ae" and "oe" were starting to be pronounced as "e".
This in no way debases the Roman pronunciation used by the Catholic Church. Latin has never ceased being spoken in Rome, and so this pronunciation represents the pronunciation of Latin as it evolved from ancient times.
However, as it is, to all practical purposes, identical to the pronunciation of Italian, one must admit the very strong possiblity that it has been influenced by the pronunciation of Italian. Indeed Medieval Latin in general was influenced by all the languages it gave rise to.
Robert
Joannes
Hello Andreas, Mikantero, Robdick, et al.
Pardon my boldness as a new member, but may I butt in with a few points?
Joannes
robdick
Joannes,
just one remark. When Latin was transliterated into Greek, the combination "ae" was rendered by "ai" (alpha, iota). For example, Caesar was rendered "Kaisar", which indicates both that the letter "c" was pronounced "K" and the combination "ae" was pronounced "i" as in "dine".
There is no need to be rambunctious on this subject. The modern Roman pronunciation (so-called ecclesiastical) is defensible on its own merits. There is no need to decry the so-called classical pronunciation.
There is a parallel issue with Greek. Greek has probably been spoken (and certainly written) longer than Latin. Additionally, it existed in a great variety of dialects. Finally, it spread all the way from Rome to the borders of the Indian sub-continent. There is no doubt that throughout this time and space, pronunciations have differed widely. The scholastic pronunciation, or the one of Erasmus, was used by a relatively limited number of people and during a relatively limited time.
The Greeks of today do not attempt to use any kind of restored pronunciation. They pronounce all forms of Greek the same way, using the Greek pronunciation of today.
The Catholic Church is doing the same thing: using the Latin pronunciation extant in Rome today.
Robert
Andreas
Robert,
somebody out there, some self proclaimed “experts” decided to purge certain sources from the classical curriculum on the basis of criteria whereby according to ‘their own judgement’ they selected only what is of the highest ‘quality’. Thus in their textbooks, their dictionaries, grammars, references, everything they produce which claims to be purely classical, best of the best you will never bump into writers who were at one time regarded as having been superb stylists (Tertullian, St. Jerome, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Minutius Felix, Lactantius and others). They disappeared not because they were of a different time period or of a lesser quality but simply because they all have one thing in common: they all professed to be Christian. How ridiculous is it to have an “Ancient Greek” dictionary that has no entry for the noun “Christos”, a word used by ancient pagan writers not to mention the Septuagint (250BC?). How ridiculous is it have a Latin dictionary that has no entry for “episcopus” [episcopus = Latin for "bishop"]? Is there or isn’t there - not a “plot” - but a phenomenon or a tendency to reconstruct a purely ‘classical’ world wherein a student will never have to bump into any trace of Judaism or Christianity?
Andreas
robdick
Andreas, as for dictionaries, I have a Greek one that covers everything up to 500 AD. It weighs about 15 pounds. But dictionaries can't all be everything to everyone. Cassel's that I used in school was for the authors we studied in school: Caesar, Cicero, Virgil etc. That was its purpose and it filled it well.
I don't think there is any "plot" to expunge Christian writers. But outside of Jerome and Augustin, there is, I think, a problem of quality. And even Jerome and Augustin, I find "heavy". It is the involved, ornate style that you find in all "post-classical" period. As for "episcopus" , Lewis and Short has it.
No, I have never seen the fact of centring on the "classics" being motivated by the desire to eliminate Christian authors. Few people study Latin more than two or three years. That is why we emphasize the "classics" that even those Christian writers took as models.
Robert
Joannes
Hello Robert:
QUOTE When Latin was transliterated into Greek, the combination "ae" was rendered by "ai" (alpha, iota). For example, Caesar was rendered "Kaisar", which indicates both that the letter "c" was pronounced "K" and the combination "ae" was pronounced "i" as in "dine". UNQUOTE
Well, sure, but (1) this would tell us more about Greek pronunciation than about Latin, since any language's speakers will pronounce another language according to their own closest equivalent, and there is no argument that I know of that claims the Greek digraph "ai" was anything else than the diphthong /ai/; and (2) no one is arguing here that Latin velar "c" had at this time passed to an affricate. All I said was that the spelling change from earlier "ai" to the "ae" of the Golden Age indicates that something's up here, and since we know the later evolution of the digraph "ae" to coincide with "e", I think it's a good guess that the sound was already lowering in the first century B.C.. Had it merged already with "e"? No, I didn't say that, merely that it was on its way, and ditto with "oe". And as Andreas might observe here, exactly what diphthong do you imply is represented in "dine" anyway, according to whose dialect?
I'm unsure why Greek is at issue here, but yes, the traditional pronunciation of Latin followed closely on the pronunciation of the local vernacular, so indeed there were different pronunciations of Latin right into the modern period. With the exception of the traditional English pronunciation of Latin, these caused no problem as far as I know. But then in the 19th century some decided to adopt the "classical" pronunciation. I merely asked why, since the traditional pronunciations had availed for centuries. Is it really merely that this was more "scientific", or is there more here? As I also said, the issue of pronunciation in many ways is the least of the problems, but it is also a stalking horse for the others. As I said, I smell humanism, and that's a mixed bag: all sorts of things are inside. There are assumptions made in this supposedly "scientific" choice here that are unanalyzed, and Andreas and I do not share all of them.
Regards,
Joannes
robdick
Joannes,
one thing should be clear: I favour the modern pronunciations for both Latin and Greek. By that I mean Latin as pronounced in Rome now (so-called ecclesiastical pronunciation) and Greek as pronounced in Athens now.
The reason for that is that both languages' pronunciations have evolved over thousands of years and no one pronunciation can cover all those centuries, so might as well use the one that living people are using now.
The research into "classical" pronunciation was started by German scholars in the 19th C., and it was certainly a legitimate pursuit. I know of a professor today who is researching the various pronunciations of Greek through the centuries, including variations from dialect to dialect.
I think the rejection of the "ecclesiastical" pronunciation is due to the fact that it is perceived as simply being the Italian pronunciation. And this may be largely true.
It might be news to you that in Spanish churches they use a Hispanic pronunciation of Latin. Germany also uses a slightly Germanized pronunciation. I don't know if there are variations in other countries.
Robert
Julie R
Italian Italian Italian
Sorry, but it just sounds better... I mean, try saying vivificamus without the letter 'v'. It's just not on.
I have no background beyond my personal view of aesthetics, but there we go.
Jules Xx.
Joannes Posted: 08 Aug 2003 18:36
Hello Robert:
I think you and I are indeed on the same page on this issue with regard to Latin pronunciation. Your mention that you prefer the modern Greek pronunciation reminds me of a comment made to me by a Greek Orthodox priest I interviewed once on another matter. Learning that I in fact was then taking second-year Greek here in Detroit from a certain Russian Orthodox priest/classicist, this Greek immediately asked whether he used the Erasmian or the modern Greek pronunciation. He was obviously saddened when I told him that we were indeed being taught the Erasmian. I in fact have a friend who studied Greek on his own for reasons of hermeneutics. He learned the modern pronunciation, but never finds anyone who understands his pronunciation, since everybody besides the Orthodox seems to use the Erasmian. The situation seems somewhat parallel, doesn't it?
Other nations' pronunciations are certainly legitimate, and when you think about it they pose no problem for understanding either, differing as they do only slightly from the Italian: I'm referring here particularly to the "Spanish" and the "Central European", or "German-Polish" pronunciations, both of which I am indeed familiar with. I might draw the line at the traditional French and English pronunciations, though! We had a French woman and everyone found it difficult to understand her Latin (and her English and Spanish also, for that matter). And as to the traditional English pronunciation, I understand that it's pretty much dead -- correct me if I'm wrong on this -- and deservedly so: I think most of us are familiar with it only through the common pronunciation of legal terms, where the Latin vowels are pronounced as if they were English ones; I remember reading once that at the Council of Constance in the 14th century, which apparently took place after the great English vowel shift, the other Europeans simply scratched their heads when the English churchmen talked with this pronunciation; they were so incomprehensible. My take is that this may also be a reason why outside the Church the restored pronunciation has taken over now in English-speaking countries. Thus, if our English-speaking culture's tradition of Latin pronunciation is unusable, it makes sense to adopt another.
Well, enough of this for now. Thanks.
Regards,
Joannes
| ||