Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Classical pronunciation of -ia/-ium?

Expand Messages
  • Carl Edlund Anderson
    This is probably a foolish question, but I was wondering if someone could confirm what the likely pronunciation of Classical Latin was in endings like -ia
    Message 1 of 23 , Jun 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      This is probably a foolish question, but I was wondering if someone
      could confirm what the likely pronunciation of Classical Latin <i> was
      in endings like -ia and -ium. I read on
      <http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Grammar/Latin-Pronunciation-Syllable-Accent.html>
      that <i> is pronounced as the semivowel /j/ at the beginning of the
      words (including those appearing as parts of a compound) before a vowel
      or in the middle of the words between two vowels. That suggests to me
      that in -ia or -ium the <i> was indeed pronounced as the front vowel
      /i/. Or not?

      Cheers,
      Carl

      --
      Carl Edlund Anderson
      http://www.carlaz.com/
    • Paul Bennett
      On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:12:39 +0100, Carl Edlund Anderson wrote: [snip] ... [snip] It suggests to me it was pronounced /j/ (and thus -/ja/ and
      Message 2 of 23 , Jun 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:12:39 +0100, Carl Edlund Anderson <cea@...>
        wrote:

        [snip]
        > <i> is pronounced as the semivowel /j/ [snip] before a vowel
        [snip]

        It suggests to me it was pronounced /j/ (and thus -/ja/ and -/jum/)





        Paul
      • Mark J. Reed
        ... Your reading is correct. The reconstructed Classical pronunciation of Latin has no falling diphthongs. The above rules tell you when an I is to be
        Message 3 of 23 , Jun 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 05:12:39PM +0100, Carl Edlund Anderson wrote:
          > This is probably a foolish question, but I was wondering if someone
          > could confirm what the likely pronunciation of Classical Latin <i> was
          > in endings like -ia and -ium. I read on
          > <http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Grammar/Latin-Pronunciation-Syllable-Accent.html>
          > that <i> is pronounced as the semivowel /j/ at the beginning of the
          > words (including those appearing as parts of a compound) before a vowel
          > or in the middle of the words between two vowels. That suggests to me
          > that in -ia or -ium the <i> was indeed pronounced as the front vowel
          > /i/. Or not?

          Your reading is correct. The reconstructed Classical pronunciation of
          Latin has no falling diphthongs. The above rules tell you when an I is
          to be treated as a consonant /j/, but otherwise it is always a vowel
          (not necessarily /i/, though; sometimes it is /I/). Thus the final
          sequences -<ia> and -<ium> are bisyllabic.

          -Mark
        • Paul Bennett
          On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:25:28 -0400, Mark J. Reed ... You re quite right. I read a comma where there wasn t one. Please disregard my
          Message 4 of 23 , Jun 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 12:25:28 -0400, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
            wrote:

            > On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 05:12:39PM +0100, Carl Edlund Anderson wrote:
            >> This is probably a foolish question, but I was wondering if someone
            >> could confirm what the likely pronunciation of Classical Latin <i>
            >> was
            >> in endings like -ia and -ium. I read on
            >> <http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Grammar/Latin-Pronunciation-Syllable-Accent.html>
            >> that <i> is pronounced as the semivowel /j/ at the beginning of the
            >> words (including those appearing as parts of a compound) before a
            >> vowel
            >> or in the middle of the words between two vowels. That suggests to
            >> me
            >> that in -ia or -ium the <i> was indeed pronounced as the front vowel
            >> /i/. Or not?
            >
            > Your reading is correct. The reconstructed Classical pronunciation of
            > Latin has no falling diphthongs. The above rules tell you when an I is
            > to be treated as a consonant /j/, but otherwise it is always a vowel
            > (not necessarily /i/, though; sometimes it is /I/). Thus the final
            > sequences -<ia> and -<ium> are bisyllabic.

            You're quite right. I read a comma where there wasn't one. Please
            disregard my previous post in this thread.

            That'll teach me to post based on slim evidence and no actual knowledge.




            Paul
          • Mark J. Reed
            ... You snipped too much :). It is pronounced as the semivowel at the beginning of words before a vowel. That s not (1) at the beginning of words, (2) before
            Message 5 of 23 , Jun 1, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:18:49PM -0400, Paul Bennett wrote:
              > On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:12:39 +0100, Carl Edlund Anderson <cea@...>
              > wrote:
              >
              > [snip]
              > > <i> is pronounced as the semivowel /j/ [snip] before a vowel
              > [snip]

              > It suggests to me it was pronounced /j/ (and thus -/ja/ and -/jum/)


              You snipped too much :). It is pronounced as the semivowel at the
              beginning of words before a vowel. That's not (1) at the beginning of words,
              (2) before a vowel; it is /j/ only when it is *both* at the beginning of a word
              *and* before a vowel. The "before a vowel" is needed so you don't
              try to pronounce <imbrium> as /jm=br=jUm/ or some such instead of /ImbrIUm/.

              -Mark
            • Carl Edlund Anderson
              ... Well, that s what I had thought previously -- though one of the bits you snipped after where I wrote before a vowel adds the important caveat at the
              Message 6 of 23 , Jun 1, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Paul Bennett wrote:

                > On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:12:39 +0100, Carl Edlund Anderson <cea@...>
                > wrote:
                > [snip]
                >><i> is pronounced as the semivowel /j/ [snip] before a vowel
                > [snip]
                >
                > It suggests to me it was pronounced /j/ (and thus -/ja/ and -/jum/)

                Well, that's what I had thought previously -- though one of the bits you
                snipped after where I wrote "before a vowel" adds the important caveat
                "at the beginning of words"! Which -ia and -ium aren't.

                Though I had kind of liked the idea of -/ja/ and -/jum/ :) I was trying
                to figure out how proper classical Latin went here, so I could decide
                whether to follow it in my "revamped Latin". I think I'd at least move
                to /-ja/ etc. in descendants of my "revamped Latin" ....

                Cheers,
                Carl

                --
                Carl Edlund Anderson
                http://www.carlaz.com/
              • Paul Bennett
                On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:53:52 -0400, Mark J. Reed ... I know. See my other post, which for some reason *still* hasn t turned up. It s been
                Message 7 of 23 , Jun 1, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:53:52 -0400, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
                  wrote:

                  > On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:18:49PM -0400, Paul Bennett wrote:
                  >> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:12:39 +0100, Carl Edlund Anderson
                  >> <cea@...>
                  >> wrote:
                  >>
                  >> [snip]
                  >> > <i> is pronounced as the semivowel /j/ [snip] before a vowel
                  >> [snip]
                  >
                  >> It suggests to me it was pronounced /j/ (and thus -/ja/ and -/jum/)
                  >
                  >
                  > You snipped too much :).

                  I know. See my other post, which for some reason *still* hasn't turned up.
                  It's been for-beep-ing ever. I doubt this one will turn up before it, but
                  who knows?





                  Paul
                • BP Jonsson
                  ... Well, since the /j/ pronunciation *was* current in vulgar Latin I can t see what s stopping you. After all if it s *your revamped* Latin it s your
                  Message 8 of 23 , Jun 1, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, Carl Edlund Anderson <cea@c...>
                    wrote:

                    >> It suggests to me it was pronounced /j/ (and thus -/ja/
                    >>and -/jum/)
                    >
                    >Well, that's what I had thought previously -- though one of
                    >the bits you snipped after where I wrote "before a vowel"
                    >adds the important caveat "at the beginning of words"!
                    >Which -ia and -ium aren't.
                    >
                    >Though I had kind of liked the idea of -/ja/ and -/jum/ :)
                    >I was trying to figure out how proper classical Latin went
                    >here, so I could decide whether to follow it in my "revamped
                    >Latin". I think I'd at least move to /-ja/ etc. in
                    >descendants of my "revamped Latin" ....

                    Well, since the /j/ pronunciation *was* current in
                    vulgar Latin I can't see what's stopping you.
                    After all if it's *your revamped* Latin it's your
                    prerogative, isn't it?

                    /BP
                  • Anton Sherwood
                    ... As I understand the term, a falling diphthong is one whose core is its first element, like /aj/. Is one of us confused? -- Anton Sherwood,
                    Message 9 of 23 , Jun 1, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mark J. Reed wrote:
                      > . . . The reconstructed Classical pronunciation of
                      > Latin has no falling diphthongs. . . .

                      As I understand the term, a falling diphthong is one whose core
                      is its first element, like /aj/. Is one of us confused?

                      --
                      Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
                    • Tristan Mc Leay
                      ... Anderson ... No. It s my world so it s my perogative. (But I say he can do it.) Of course, failing doing-it-on-a-whim, you can always later
                      Message 10 of 23 , Jun 1, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- BP Jonsson <melroch@...> wrote:
                        ---------------------------------
                        --- In romconlang@yahoogroups.com, Carl Edlund
                        Anderson <cea@c...>
                        wrote:

                        > >Though I had kind of liked the idea of -/ja/ and
                        > >-/jum/ :) I was trying to figure out how proper
                        > >classical Latin went here, so I could decide
                        > >whether to follow it in my "revamped Latin". I
                        > >think I'd at least move to /-ja/ etc. in
                        > >descendants of my "revamped Latin" ....

                        > Well, since the /j/ pronunciation *was* current in
                        > vulgar Latin I can't see what's stopping you.
                        > After all if it's *your revamped* Latin it's your
                        > prerogative, isn't it?

                        No. It's my world so it's my perogative. (But I say he
                        can do it.)

                        Of course, failing doing-it-on-a-whim, you can always
                        later (i.e. after a /j/>/J/ change or whatever else
                        may happen) say that i > j / _V or something, and then
                        this j>J as well. I believe Spanish is known for doing
                        this, but with /h/ (i.e. h>0, then f>h>0, and in some
                        dialects s#>h>0 and/or x>h>0 (x<j, g)). Obviously
                        no-one particularly wants to be a /h/ in Spain.
                        Obviously it's what evil people get reincarnated as :)

                        --
                        Tristan (who rejoins the world on Saturday... three
                        more days of semester left!)

                        Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
                        http://au.movies.yahoo.com
                      • Mark J. Reed
                        ... Apparently so. I thought falling diphthongs where ones where the first element was the higher (semi)vowel (the i/j or u/w), and therefore the tongue has
                        Message 11 of 23 , Jun 1, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 01:43:59PM -0700, Anton Sherwood wrote:
                          > Mark J. Reed wrote:
                          > > . . . The reconstructed Classical pronunciation of
                          > > Latin has no falling diphthongs. . . .
                          >
                          > As I understand the term, a falling diphthong is one whose core
                          > is its first element, like /aj/. Is one of us confused?

                          Apparently so. I thought falling diphthongs where ones where the first
                          element was the higher (semi)vowel (the i/j or u/w), and therefore the
                          tongue has to "fall" in the course of pronouncing the syllable.

                          Judges?

                          -Mark
                        • Tristan Mc Leay
                          ... According to the Wikipedia article on diphthongs ... which seems to agree with Anton. (So if Wikipedia is correct and if we re describing /ja/ as a
                          Message 12 of 23 , Jun 1, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...> wrote:
                            > On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 01:43:59PM -0700, Anton
                            > Sherwood wrote:
                            > > As I understand the term, a falling diphthong is
                            > > one whose core is its first element, like /aj/.
                            > >Is one of us confused?

                            > Apparently so. I thought falling diphthongs where
                            > ones where the first element was the higher
                            > (semi)vowel (the i/j or u/w), and therefore the
                            > tongue has to "fall" in the course of pronouncing
                            > the syllable.

                            > Judges?

                            According to the Wikipedia article on diphthongs
                            <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphthong>:

                            : Falling diphtongs are stressed on the first element;

                            : raising diphthongs on the second. In Closing
                            : diphthongs, the second element is closer than the
                            : first; in opening diphthongs, more opened. Some
                            : languages contrast short and long diphthongs.

                            which seems to agree with Anton. (So if Wikipedia is
                            correct and if we're describing /ja/ as a diphthong,
                            it's a raising opening ones.)

                            --
                            Tristan.

                            Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
                            http://au.movies.yahoo.com
                          • Mark J. Reed
                            ... Okay, I cheerfully admit my mistake. That s what I get for assuming that the terminology would be logically related to similar terminology elsewhere. :)
                            Message 13 of 23 , Jun 1, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:42:04AM +1000, Tristan Mc Leay wrote:
                              > the Wikipedia article on diphthongs
                              > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphthong>:
                              > [...]
                              > seems to agree with Anton.

                              Okay, I cheerfully admit my mistake. That's what I get for assuming
                              that the terminology would be logically related to similar terminology
                              elsewhere. :)

                              -Mark
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.