Discussion:
English Cardinal Basil Hume complimented Karol Wojtyla on his Latin pronunciation
(too old to reply)
Dingbat
2017-05-31 07:28:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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?

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?

An article on the late Basil Hume:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-cardinal-basil-hume-1100741.html
Helmut Richter
2017-05-31 09:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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?
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?
Well, English is not a Romance language, and yet I consider a
pronunciation "Anno Domini" [,ænəʊ 'dɒmɪ,naɪ] less than optimal.


I am also not sure that the exact pronunciation of Latin was constant
over the entire empire and over the centuries. So, there is certainly
some leeway.


Pope Benedict XVI (aka Joseph Ratzinger) had a noticeable Bavarian
accent in all languages including Latin, although I am impressed with
the large number of languages he spoke without much effort.

Moreover, Italian pronunciation of Latin (e.g. -ce- as [-tʃ-] is
sometimes considered standard in some contexts (Roman Church, some kinds
of choir music).

So, it is a broad subject.
--
Helmut Richter
Dingbat
2017-05-31 23:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Helmut Richter
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?
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?
Well, English is not a Romance language, and yet I consider a
pronunciation "Anno Domini" [,ænəʊ 'dɒmɪ,naɪ] less than optimal.
This might be a consequence of a want of attempting to be conservative in
pronunciation. The hypothesis is that for those who do make such an attempt,
it is an advantage for the language they attempt to pronounce conservatively
to not be closely relative to the language they ordinarily speak.

Here are more observations about Englishmen's pronunciation of Latin, from
A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names
By John Walker:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PG0UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA7
Foreign pronunciation of Greek and Latin nearer to the ancient than the English
English pronunciation of Greek and Latin injurious to quantity
Post by Helmut Richter
I am also not sure that the exact pronunciation of Latin was constant
over the entire empire and over the centuries. So, there is certainly
some leeway.
Pope Benedict XVI (aka Joseph Ratzinger) had a noticeable Bavarian
accent in all languages including Latin, although I am impressed with
the large number of languages he spoke without much effort.
Moreover, Italian pronunciation of Latin (e.g. -ce- as [-tʃ-] is
sometimes considered standard in some contexts (Roman Church, some kinds
of choir music).
So, it is a broad subject.
--
Helmut Richter
Christian Weisgerber
2017-05-31 15:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin#Comparison_with_classical_Latin
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
time with.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Arnaud Fournet
2017-05-31 16:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
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.
yes, as far as France is concerned, I think that people involved in traditional Latin liturgy pronounce Latin as if it were Italian.
As far as I concerned, I think it's quite a practical situation.
There's no reason why practical liturgical Latin should follow reconstructed Latin phonology.
A.
Dingbat
2017-06-01 00:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
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.
Latin for ecclesiastical purposes goes back to St Jerome's time. Pronouncing
it like the Vulgar Latin of Jerome's time would presumably qualify as 'being
conservative' in comparison to the Italianate Latin currently used for
ecclesiastical purposes. I'd have liked to see from Hume an explanation of
what merit he found in being conservative in pronunciation; he didn't give
one.
Post by Christian Weisgerber
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_Latin#Comparison_with_classical_Latin
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
time with.
Quite!
Christian Weisgerber
2017-06-01 20:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Post by Christian Weisgerber
What's the standard of Latin pronunciation that you think should
be adhered to?
Latin for ecclesiastical purposes goes back to St Jerome's time. Pronouncing
it like the Vulgar Latin of Jerome's time would presumably qualify as 'being
conservative' in comparison to the Italianate Latin currently used for
ecclesiastical purposes.
By that time, the Vulgar Latin vowel system looked a lot like the
Modern Italian one. Not sure what the state of palatalization was,
but overall I'd say Italianate Latin isn't that far off from VL
pronunciation at Jerome's time.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Ruud Harmsen
2017-06-01 07:13:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Wed, 31 May 2017 15:10:51 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
Post by Christian Weisgerber
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
time with.
Long and short vowel were already changed into timbre differences by
then?
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-01 11:09:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 31 May 2017 15:10:51 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
Post by Christian Weisgerber
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
time with.
Long and short vowel were already changed into timbre differences by
then?
There's no reason to suppose that length didn't always correlate with quality difference.

A book is being written, about two chapters per year, that I'm editing for the
Italian author, on Latin phonology, that correlates the evidence
Ruud Harmsen
2017-06-01 18:48:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Thu, 1 Jun 2017 04:09:13 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Wed, 31 May 2017 15:10:51 -0000 (UTC): Christian Weisgerber
Post by Christian Weisgerber
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
time with.
Long and short vowel were already changed into timbre differences by
then?
There's no reason to suppose that length didn't always correlate with quality difference.
You're right, because Wikipedia confirms it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation#Long_and_short_vowels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
A book is being written, about two chapters per year, that I'm editing for the
Italian author, on Latin phonology, that correlates the evidence
Books are obsolete by now.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
Christian Weisgerber
2017-06-01 20:52:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Christian Weisgerber
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
time with.
Long and short vowel were already changed into timbre differences by
then?
It's a moving target. Wikipedia has a fascinating table:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin#Monophthongization

Take it with a grain of salt, since there's no attribution and I'm
a tad skeptical that this can be known with such accuracy, but
overall it's plausible. By the end of the Imperial period we have
the seven-vowel system of Proto-Romance.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Peter T. Daniels
2017-06-01 21:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christian Weisgerber
Post by Ruud Harmsen
Post by Christian Weisgerber
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
time with.
Long and short vowel were already changed into timbre differences by
then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin#Monophthongization
Take it with a grain of salt, since there's no attribution and I'm
a tad skeptical that this can be known with such accuracy, but
overall it's plausible. By the end of the Imperial period we have
the seven-vowel system of Proto-Romance.
You'll find the data and arguments in the book I'm editing. An important new
source of information is the tablets from (post-)Roman England -- I also went
over for her a talk she gave in Cambridge last season.

Loading...