Post by Dingbat
What I remember Hume saying is that other Popes pronounced Latin as if it were
Italian whereas Pope John Paul II had a more conservative pronunciation.
Is a Romance language speaker at a disadvantage in pronouncing Latin
correctly by virtue of getting influenced by their native language because
it is a descendant of Latin?
If you think that pronouncing Latin like Italian is bad (more on
that below), then this isn't different from any other language.
Pronouncing Latin the way it is usually pronounced in English,
German, etc. is also wrong.
What's the standard of Latin pronunciation that you think should
be adhered to? The pronunciation of Classical Latin is reasonably
well known, but more as a curiosity for historical linguists. I
don't think Latin classes teach that pronunciation. In fact they
largely gloss over the spoken language. (In Germany, the extent
of teaching Classical Latin pronunciation appears to be "c is always
k".) You could also argue that Classical Latin is anachronistic for
ecclesiastical purposes and Vulgar Latin phonology would be more
appropriate. Then of course there actually is Ecclesiastical Latin
and it *is* largely pronounced like Italian.
Post by Dingbat
IOW, was JP2 at an advantage because his native language was Polish which is
not a Romance language and thereby didn't influence his Latin pronunciation?
Modern Italian is probably the language closest to Vulgar Latin,
in particular its phonology, so if your intent is to speak like the
Romans did (whatever you have in mind exactly, Classical, Vulgar,
year 0 or 200 or 400), Italian should be a good starting point.
The articulation of the stops, /r/, and geminates should all be
correct--something speakers of, say, English or German have a hard
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de