Personally, I'm not terribly annoyed by it, but in principle I quite agree with you; I certainly wouldn't use it myself. This is something, it seems to me, that some people carry over from their native languages, but there is, as you mentioned (and as far as I know), no indication that this was a feature of the classical Latin pronunciation. Now, I'm not sure I could disprove it if someone hypothetically claimed the Romans did do that, but whenever there might be doubts with regards to restored Latin pronunciation, I prefer to glance at the Italians, who manage their vowels just fine without intervening glottal stops.I mean, I know that for some it is an option to pronounce a glottal stop between two vowels, but I find it a bit redundant. I think it's excusable on the beginning of unconnected words beginning with a vowel, but otherwise it seems rather intrusive given that nothing about a present glottal stop is even mentioned in the restituted model. Well, I know, it is your option, but I at least find the glottal stops in the words as Latiō and definitely in "deus" quite intrusive and reundant. I wonder what does Alatius think on this matter?
My response ))I thought I would have (and perhaps give) some fun with this. (I certainly messed up a few things as I was trying to keep that rather fast dramatic tone.)
Tum Domitius vóce atque vultú atrócióre "nulla" inquit "prorsus bonae salútis spés reliqua est, cum vós quoque, philosophórum inlustrissimí, nihil iam aliud quam verba auctóritátésque verbórum cordí habétis. Mittam autem librum tibi, in quó id reperiás, quod quaeris. Ego enim grammaticus vítae iam atque mórum disciplínás quaeró, vós philosophí mera estis, ut M. Cato áit, "mortuália"; glossária namque colligitis et lexidia, rés taetrás et inánés et frívolás tamquam mulierum vócés praeficárum. Atque utinam" inquit "mútí omnés hominés essémus! minus improbitás instrúmentí habéret."
I knew that one and I even pronounced it consciously. If it didn't get heard I don't know what went wrong.also hidden quantity in Mārcus
Oh.. perhaps... I don't remember. I just wanted to mention it.I knew that one and I even pronounced it consciously. If it didn't get heard I don't know what went wrong.
We don't know that much about it. There were even opinions about the tonal/musical/pitch accent in Latin, but it seems debunked today.Godmy, your talking about the Czech stress being weak has just reminded me of something I had wondered recently: I had precisely wondered if we had any idea how strong the Latin stress was; if I should do my Latin stresses quite like my English ones (which are supposed to be pretty strong), or something milder. I don't know if we've had any means of telling that; very possible we haven't, but I ask you just in case we had and you'd read something about it.
What is there to make us think so? Just the way it ended up in the Romance languages, or is there something else? Perhaps the fact that Latin poetry isn't (for the most part) based on stress, which would have been impossible if the stress was very strong?It was most likely a bit weaker than the English stress accent.
Do be honest I'm not entirely sure, because I'm just repeating what I've read/heard. I think that must be a large part of it, however.What is there to make us think so? Just the way it ended up in the Romance languages, or is there something else?