"Always moving forward, without fear"
- Thread starter Neil H
- Start date
xD
Ahhh...hmmm.. maybe I know what you mean, but I'll rather not attempt again xD
(But I'm glad I got the "r"'s right! I usually did it heavily in a German manner. I also tried a typical french final nasal m/n Tongue.gif "(1) Tongue out :p")
- no idea if somebody pronounced it there)
(But I'm glad I got the "r"'s right! I usually did it heavily in a German manner. I also tried a typical french final nasal m/n
- no idea if somebody pronounced it there)
Well, maybe the r of semper sounds a little bit German. But German and French r's are close, if not exctly the same (German ones are still "harder"...).
I didn't notice the nasalization, however. But I wouldn't pronounce one in pergendum - I would pronounce a full "m". Now in semper, if I really had to pronounce it unaware it is Latin and thinking it's a French word, the -em would be one of our bizarre nasalized sounds.
Edit: Not in pergendum: I mean, not at the end, but for -en, yes - again if I thought it was a French word. Because otherwise I would rather pronounce it with French accent but separating all letters, just because I know it's not French.
I didn't notice the nasalization, however. But I wouldn't pronounce one in pergendum - I would pronounce a full "m". Now in semper, if I really had to pronounce it unaware it is Latin and thinking it's a French word, the -em would be one of our bizarre nasalized sounds.
Edit: Not in pergendum: I mean, not at the end, but for -en, yes - again if I thought it was a French word. Because otherwise I would rather pronounce it with French accent but separating all letters, just because I know it's not French.
Also: the official restituted pronunciation should have the final "m"s nasalized, but the reality that I don't do it is because I never hear anybody doing it. Not even the greatest "speaking" latinists I know over media (like Wilfried Stroh), and they don't do it in Vivarium Novum what I asked.
So I think that this rule may be valid, but it didn't catch on in the new reality
So I won't be an exception.
So I think that this rule may be valid, but it didn't catch on in the new reality
So I won't be an exception.
 Bouncy.gif "(4) Bouncy :bounce:")
 Applause.gif "(4) Applause :applause:")
Yeah, but I'm not sure if it was really like our "on", "en" etc. in French... I think it was something a little "slighter"... I read (in Vox Latina Classical) it was supposedly something similar to what happens to the "n" in English -ing endings. I've already tried alone to pronounce it the way I imagine it could have been, but it's hard to figure outAlso: the official restituted pronunciation should have the final "m"s nasalized, but the reality that I don't do it is because I never hear anybody doing it. Not even the greatest "speaking" latinists I know over media (like Wilfried Stroh), and they don't do it in Vivarium Novum what I asked.
So I think that this rule may be valid, but it didn't catch on in the new reality
. I have no problem pronouncing -ing in English, but making the same thing with "u", "a", "e" instead of "i" as a vowel before, while cutting out the somewhat ghost trace of the "g" remaining in the English and which probably shouldn't be there in Latin, all that while knowing the comparison with English "ing" is without any doubt not an exact one... it's not easy to figure out what that sound might have really been...!
I wouldn't be so harsh about the comparisons, because we are after all all humans and whether we like it or not, we do lot of things awfully in a similar or the same manner even though there is much space in the mouth...
One problem to compare it with the English "ing" ending is that it will provide us only with one nasal vowel, as you say it, but I'm personally quite sure that if English provided us also with other vowels in this manner, they would sound very similarly to the French nasals. I think that the thing where the French nasals are so distinct (personally) is that they are so long and therefore "extremely" nasal, because the tongue has enough time to get to the ideal position - it may not have so much time (hard to say) with the English nasal "n" and probably that would be the same in Latin. Less extreme French nasals But that is my hypothesis (which is, I think, harmless and not close to being unacceptable ).
But I know that any explanation based only on theories and less on data may be considered as a simple one, less credible. On the other hand I think that the space to maneuver with the nasals in the mouth is not that big that we should feel forever desperate as never being able to achieve something that may be as close as possible
_________
Anyway, an interesting topic! And surely we could link this thread later when the discussion arises "why we are so bad boys (and girls) as not pronouncing the restituted pronunciation with half-cutted m/n's"
One problem to compare it with the English "ing" ending is that it will provide us only with one nasal vowel, as you say it, but I'm personally quite sure that if English provided us also with other vowels in this manner, they would sound very similarly to the French nasals. I think that the thing where the French nasals are so distinct (personally) is that they are so long and therefore "extremely" nasal, because the tongue has enough time to get to the ideal position - it may not have so much time (hard to say) with the English nasal "n" and probably that would be the same in Latin. Less extreme French nasals
But that is my hypothesis (which is, I think, harmless and not close to being unacceptable ).But I know that any explanation based only on theories and less on data may be considered as a simple one, less credible. On the other hand I think that the space to maneuver with the nasals in the mouth is not that big that we should feel forever desperate as never being able to achieve something that may be as close as possible
_________
Anyway, an interesting topic! And surely we could link this thread later when the discussion arises "why we are so bad boys (and girls) as not pronouncing the restituted pronunciation with half-cutted m/n's"
Another thing about pronunciation theory: I understand it's for convenience that we usually classify pronunciation as "classical" and "medieval", but it's in fact a bit false. Some of the features of what we call "medieval" pronunciation already happened much earlier than the medieval period - as the "e" pronunciation of "ae" and "oe", as showed by spelling in inscriptions. Already in some Pompeian inscriptions we find "e" for "ae" and the contrary hypercorrection, and presumably they can't be later than 79 AD (which is, I think, still considered as the classical period - it probably just depended on areas then, I guess).
Exactly!
That's why I don't object calling lot of the traditional pronunciations as being "natural" in a way, because lot of their features were simply continually carried over the centuries without any big change (sometimes only the pronunciation got domesticated by the hosting language... as in French tse -> se (probably), then carried to English.)
(As you point out)
________________
(Just some additional information about a particular pronunciation)
Some time ago I thought about one or two features of the central-European medieval pronunciation which seems to me as artificial over the centuries and pronounced so only thanks to the script:
That's why I don't object calling lot of the traditional pronunciations as being "natural" in a way, because lot of their features were simply continually carried over the centuries without any big change (sometimes only the pronunciation got domesticated by the hosting language... as in French tse -> se (probably), then carried to English.)
(As you point out)
________________
(Just some additional information about a particular pronunciation)
Some time ago I thought about one or two features of the central-European medieval pronunciation which seems to me as artificial over the centuries and pronounced so only thanks to the script:
- Pronunciation of "Ecce" as "Ektse" <- that is consistent with the written rule, but inconsistent with the evolution, because as you know the original pronunciation had there really phonetically only one consonant but with a pause (you can't make a long "k", because it's a stop consonant, you can of course say "k", release and another "k" and say it quickly, but that's weird and unnatural for any pronunciations. Evan De Milner on Youtube does it sometimes... I told him ) Therefore in the evolution, as it would transform probably to "ts", it would also stay one consonant but with a pause. As usually in the ecclesiastical pronunciation they say simply "E-che" (or "Eche") ("ch" as in "church"). The thing is that the other consonant was phonetically lost and if one changed to "ts", other would be either understood to have changed in a "ts" but not really heard besides that pause, but that one would suddenly appear as "k" (even if it wasn't phonetically there) and one would transform to "tse"... that's just so improbable. That's surely an inconsistency in this medieval traditional pronunciation.
- I forgot what I wanted to talk about, I'll get to it later
Ah yes, the other thing was this:
When "ti+vowel" and "di+vowel" changed into "tsi" and "dzi" (medius -> medzius -> mezzo), then the medieval pronunciation took, when it was later better institutionalized, only the first change and consciously neglected the second one. Even the modern ecclesiastical pronunciation does it so! Ergo you won't see a traditional pronunciation desiring to be Latin and saying "medzius" (or none I know about). So in this point, Pacis puella, it was a bit medieval/artificial But only a bit.
For example lot of the vowels: there are not much disputes about the vowel sounds (at least about majority of them, if we omit some special), because they were quite naturally carried over the centuries... (but maybe we owe that to the fact that most of the thence European indo-european languages had the vowel maps really really similar and not having changed much ever since )
When "ti+vowel" and "di+vowel" changed into "tsi" and "dzi" (medius -> medzius -> mezzo), then the medieval pronunciation took, when it was later better institutionalized, only the first change and consciously neglected the second one. Even the modern ecclesiastical pronunciation does it so! Ergo you won't see a traditional pronunciation desiring to be Latin and saying "medzius" (or none I know about). So in this point, Pacis puella, it was a bit medieval/artificial
But only a bit.For example lot of the vowels: there are not much disputes about the vowel sounds (at least about majority of them, if we omit some special), because they were quite naturally carried over the centuries... (but maybe we owe that to the fact that most of the thence European indo-european languages had the vowel maps really really similar and not having changed much ever since
)
I've got a mic, so I'll show you Frenchy Latin.
So, the first one is how I pronounce it effortlessly with my French accent, but still being self-conscious it is Latin, so not pronouncing the correspondent sounds we find in French for the correspondent groups of letters, but pronouncing all letters separately.
For the second one I did as though I thought they were French words, so applying French phonetical rules for the groups of letters.
So, the first one is how I pronounce it effortlessly with my French accent, but still being self-conscious it is Latin, so not pronouncing the correspondent sounds we find in French for the correspondent groups of letters, but pronouncing all letters separately.
For the second one I did as though I thought they were French words, so applying French phonetical rules for the groups of letters.
Here you are. I was really close to the mic, I think my voice sounds a little louder like that, but I don't know if the difference is that big.
Edit: And, of course, if the op is still following the thread: don't imitate! Lol. Imitate Godmy's first version.
Edit: And, of course, if the op is still following the thread: don't imitate! Lol. Imitate Godmy's first version.