Let us hear and analyse each other's Latin pronunciation

Alatius

Civis Illustris
Edit: after relistening, there is a short pause after the stressed "e", but it's not long enough to make a "tt" nor the pause is initiated after the vowel as one would expect with the sudden interrupton of onset of the stop, THEN a pause, then the release. So, I didn't do "tt" phonetically/orally (it wasn't articulated, nor I see a reason mentally why I would have done it consciously or not), but there is a small pause which you "unequestionably" interpret that way. If anything, I would say it's questionable... but whatever, I don't want to fight over this word, since I had some other problems with it of my own I mentioned somewhere above...
As you rightly write in the end of your post, we have a disagreement when it comes to how to read poetry: I believe that the rhythm of the verse meter should be a bit more clearly and consistently done than it would be in prose. But by using the word unquestionably here, I wanted to point out that "perpetuum" in this case has a real issue, which I didn't expect to be controversial to you. I am genuinely flabbergasted that you don't acknowledge this long "t". So it is really interesting to discuss and analyse this, to see why we perceive this so differently.

I suspect that, maybe, our different native languages make us pay attention to different things, and have different thresholds for what is perceived as phonemic syllable length in different contexts. Swedish does not have the same free length distribution as does Czech, but it has long and short syllables: specifically, a stressed syllable is always long, either by nature or by position (to use the same terminology as in Latin). So, a common error for some foreigners from languages without long/short distinction in vowels and consonants, is that they don't manage to lengthen stressed syllables enough, and native speakers are sensitive to this. However, if I listen to you saying the faux-Swedish word "perpettuum" here (notice the deliberate double t), I do not hear a too short stressed syllable (as would be the case in the proper Roman pronunciation of "perpetuum"); if anything, I hear the length as a bit overdone!

I struggle a bit to understand your description of your analysis of the phonetic situation; perhaps you could rewrite it to make it clearer? Are you making a distinction between two different types of pauses? Acoustically, there is just one continuous pause discernible, which of course is perceived as the hold of the stop. In this case, I measure the hold+release to be 270 ms, which should be compared to the length of "cc" in "accipe" in the line before, which is 280 ms long.

Edit: All right, considering what you said about not cluttering this thread, we can discuss this more in a separate thread, in case you still disagree.
But again, I thank you for trying to catch even these small details, just as I always do, I appreciate it, even if we part in the conclusion!
You are welcome, but this is not a small detail. It is one of the three main errors in your reading (the other two being "interea" and "manantia"); most of the other things that I commented on are contestable, but I am confident to say that this is not. Please listen to yourself again with a disinterested mindset. Then we can discuss "alloquerer" and "quandoquidem" later. ;)
Well, in fact, if I read it the way I think is most ideal (and if I remember correctly, it's also what Wilfried Stroh proposes), I would read the whole thing as a prose with all those elisions that need to be done in poetry (whether they were appliclable outside or poetry or not).... that is maybe without the caesuras too. My current reading is some kind of compromise between not inducing artificial phonetic markers but both trying to perserve what I think was clearly thought as a phonetical marker by the Romans: the caesura (I can't see how it could be interpreted differently) although this clashes with what i just said before. I'm a little bit torn on caesuras.
Haha, well, we are on the same page here then; I could very well have written what you just wrote!
I know we have some basic disagreements about the way poetry should be read which lead to maybe 80% (or more?) points in your criticism (that is: open vs. long syllables phonetically).!
Absolutely, let's save that for another time!
 

Godmy

Sīmia Illustris
Thanks, I'll send an answer to a separate thread so this thread can be "vacated" for another potential recordings & reviews.


Iohannes Aurum could you please edit the post here #271 and change the
multum manantia flē
to
multum *mānantia flē

(1. an asterisk is added; 2. a macron is added to the first "a") for the future readers making audio recordings. Thanks!
 

Iohannes Aurum

Technicus Auxiliarius
Thanks, I'll send an answer to a separate thread so this thread can be "vacated" for another potential recordings & reviews.


Iohannes Aurum could you please edit the post here #271 and change the
multum manantia flē
to
multum *mānantia flē

(1. an asterisk is added; 2. a macron is added to the first "a") for the future readers making audio recordings. Thanks!
Done
 

TitusMarius

New Member
Fortasse iudicium mihi dare potestis, ut tiro sum. Pronuntiatu Ecclesiastico utor. Paragraphum primum ex libro primo cui nomen est "Confessiones" Sancti Aurelii Augustini legere/recitare elegi. Clare Americanus sum. :p
 

Attachments

Godmy

Sīmia Illustris
Thanks, here's the feedback, but next time, please, try to read some of the texts that have been posted here where the vowel lengths and accents have already been marked, because it's additional work for me otherwise ;) Also, please, keep it under 1 minute. 20 seconds long recording can take forever to react to, let alone 2 minutes. Also, if you're not about to use the restored pronunciation, please state which pronunciation model you're using, it will help to avoid some misunderstandings.

Edit: I misspoke Marius as Mārius (I thought it was long out of ignorance, it should be short, my apologies).


magnus es, domine, et laubilis valdē. magna virtūs tua et sapientiae tuae nōn est numerus. et laure tē vult homō, aliqua portiō creārae tuae, et homō circumferēns mortālitem suam, circumferēns testinium pecsuī et testinium quia superbīs resistis; et tamen laure tē vult homō, aliqua portiō creārae tuae. tū excitās ut laure tē dēlectet, quia fēcistī nōs ad tē et inquiētum est cor nostrum nec requiēscat in tē. dā mihi, domine, scīre et intellegere utrum sit prius invore tē an laure tē, et scīre tē prius sit an invore tē. sed quis tē invocat nesciēns tē? aliud enim prō aliō potest invore nesciēns. an potius invoris ut sciāris? quōmodo autem invobunt, in quem nōn crēdirunt? aut quōmodo crēdent sine praedicante? et laubunt dominum quī requīrunt eum: quaerentēs enim inveniunt eum et invenientēs laubunt eum. quaeram tē, domine, invocāns tē et invocem tē crēdēns in tē: praeditus enim es bīs. invocat tē, domine, fidēs mea, quam dedismihi, quam īnspīrāsmihi per hūmānitem liī tuī, per ministerium praedicāris tuī.
 

Attachments

Lysandra

Canis
Salue, Godmy! Quomodo te habes?

I'm doing the final Latin presentation of my undergraduate degree on Section 25 of Cicero's Pro Marcello (see below), and while pronunciation is not graded, I would really like read it properly. Unfortunately, although I have noticed a huge improvement in my ability to sight-read Latin over the past few months, I'm not as happy with my pronunciation. Would you mind listening to the recording I made? I realise it is a bit long (1 min, 40 sec) and I don't want to take up too much of your time so perhaps you can just let me know one or two main points I need to work on. I also think I would learn a lot just by listening to you read it! :D

Here is the recording (restituted pronunciation): https://vocaroo.com/i/s046uem70Elc

[25] Itaque illam tuam praeclarissimam et sapientissimam vocem invitus audivi: "Satis diu vel naturae vixi vel gloriae.'' Satis, si ita vis, fortasse naturae, addo etiam, si placet, gloriae: at, quod maximum est, patriae certe parum. Qua re omitte istam, quaeso, doctorum hominum in contemnenda morte prodentiam: noli nostro periculo esse sapiens. Saepe enim venit ad auris meas te idem istud nimis crebro dicere, tibi satis te vixisse. Credo: sed tum id audirem, si tibi soli viveres, aut si tibi etiam soli natus esses. Omnium salutem civium cunctamque rem publicam res tuae gestae complexae sunt: tantum abes a perfectione maximorum operum, ut fundamenta nondum quae cogitas ieceris. Hic tu modum vitae tuae non salute rei publicae, sed aequitate animi definies? Quid, si istud ne gloriae tuae quidem satis est? cuius te esse avidissimum, quamvis sis sapiens, non negabis.

Gratias tibi ago!
Lysandra
 

Bonifilius

New Member
May I add my tuppence worth? I think this is a lovely recording, very clear, and the tone of the words comes across very well. It is a pleasure to listen to! But if you want comments on one or two details which could be looked at, here we go: (1) You put the stress on an unusual syllable here and there, e.g. naturáe, gloriáe, iecéris, definiés, sapiéns, vivéres. (2) You sometimes pronounce the final -es as -ez, e.g. definies, sapiens, abes; it should be 'ss' everywhere I think, although it is very common to hear people pronouncing it with a z. (3) You sometimes confusingly add an extra vowel where there should be no vowel, e.g. pateriae, ceredo. (4) There should be a long vowel in the final syllable of aurīs, essēs, sapiēns, definiēs, iecerīs, viverēs. (5) You omitted the 'h' in hominum. (6) Opinions differ as to the accent in itaque, but I think ítaque is preferable for various reasons. (7) You might consider giving less of an 'm' sound to the final 'm'. (8) I think maximum est would have been pronounced maximumst (with a nasalised vowel instead of 'm'). Apart from that, splendid.
 

Lysandra

Canis
May I add my tuppence worth? I think this is a lovely recording, very clear, and the tone of the words comes across very well. It is a pleasure to listen to! But if you want comments on one or two details which could be looked at, here we go: (1) You put the stress on an unusual syllable here and there, e.g. naturáe, gloriáe, iecéris, definiés, sapiéns, vivéres. (2) You sometimes pronounce the final -es as -ez, e.g. definies, sapiens, abes; it should be 'ss' everywhere I think, although it is very common to hear people pronouncing it with a z. (3) You sometimes confusingly add an extra vowel where there should be no vowel, e.g. pateriae, ceredo. (4) There should be a long vowel in the final syllable of aurīs, essēs, sapiēns, definiēs, iecerīs, viverēs. (5) You omitted the 'h' in hominum. (6) Opinions differ as to the accent in itaque, but I think ítaque is preferable for various reasons. (7) You might consider giving less of an 'm' sound to the final 'm'. (8) I think maximum est would have been pronounced maximumst (with a nasalised vowel instead of 'm'). Apart from that, splendid.
Gratias, Bonifili!! I think your comments are spot on. To respond to these issues individually:
1) I have to be totally honest -- I really struggle with stress. It's not just a problem with Latin but also with my studies in Italian and Russian.
2) Agreed. I will definitely work on it.
3) It sounds like an extra vowel because I struggle to roll my r's after certain consonants (especially 't'). I am correct in assuming that r's are rolled in restituted pronunciation, aren't I?
4) You're right. I really need to work on long vowels vs short vowels in addition to stress.
5) I think I noticed that at the time but decided not to rerecord. I keep getting confused with Italian where the 'h' is never pronounced.
6) I will try to remember that.
7) Good point.
8) Another good point. :)
 

Bonifilius

New Member
That's fine, but I don't think there's any need to worry about small things – but when you put the stress in an unusual place or add an extra vowel it can be confusing for people listening who aren't following the text with their eyes: which word was it you just said? etc. So it is worthwhile being as accurate as one can on such matters. Here is a link to a YouTube film of an ex-pupil of mine talking Latin:
I don't think I have ever heard anyone speaking Latin more naturally or fluently, even though there are some features perhaps that might offend a purist, such as pronouncing 'v' as 'v' and final -es as -ez. For him Latin is just another language that he can chatter away in, not something that has to be recited in a special literary way.
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
3) It sounds like an extra vowel because I struggle to roll my r's after certain consonants (especially 't'). I am correct in assuming that r's are rolled in restituted pronunciation, aren't I?
Yes

5) I think I noticed that at the time but decided not to rerecord. I keep getting confused with Italian where the 'h' is never pronounced.
I actually think not pronouncing the h or pronouncing it an extremely weak fashion is fine.
It is a good recording! In addition to Bonifili comments, there are a few singular words that I noticed, if you care to know (actually I think he already mentioned some of it):

Saepe enim venit ad auris meas te idem istud nimis crebro dicere, tibi satis te vixisse.
the e in vēnit is long (it's perfect tense in this sentence)
the i in aurīs is long (acc. plural)

tantum abes a perfectione maximorum operum, ut fundamenta nondum quae cogitas ieceris.
the first e in iēceris is long and should receive the stress (the last i doesn't necessarily have to be long, though, it can be both).

Hic tu modum vitae tuae non salute rei publicae, sed aequitate animi definies? Quid, si istud ne gloriae tuae quidem satis est? cuius te esse avidissimum, quamvis sis sapiens, non negabis.
The first i in dēfīniēs is long (and it should be bit more of a four-syllable word)


I somehow didn't have so much of a problem with the stress being slightly off in other words ... probably because I think the stress might have been less important than we might think (as long as you get the quantities right). Anyway, it's a pretty good recording!
 

Godmy

Sīmia Illustris
Please, upload an mp3 next time as I sent the tutorial in the first post :p (there are some good reasons for that I mention later) ... anyway, thanks! Here's my response.

(I hope I haven't omitted anything, I was in a bit of hurry, also in the transcription: another reason why I like when the same texts are recorded (and preferentially under one minute), I don't need to do these transcriptions and I do want that the people see the stress and the long vowels in what they are going to read.)


Itaque illam tuam praeclārissimam et sapientissimam cem intus auvī: "Satis diū vel nārae xī vel glōriae.'' Satis, sī ita vīs, fortasse nārae, adetiam, sī placet, glōriae: at, quod maximum est, patriae cerparum. Quā rē omitte istam, quaesō, docrum hominum in contemnenmorte prūdentiam: nostrō peculō esse sapiēns. Saepe enim venit ad aurīs meās tē idem istud nimis *crēbrō cere, tibi satis tē vīxisse. Crēdō: sed tum id aurem, sī tibi verēs, aut sī tibi etiam tus esses. Omnium satem vium cunctamque rem blicam rēs tuae gestae complexae sunt: tantum *abes ā perfectiōne maxirum operum, ut fundamenta nōndum quae gitās ceris. Hīc tū modum tae tuae nōn sate reī publicae, sed aequite animī dēniēs? Quid, sī istud nē glōriae tuae quidem satis est? cuius tē esse avidissimum, quamvīs sīs sapiēns, nōn nebis.


*Has had the lengths corrected after the response recording, is not reflected in the recording/response correctly. My apologies for a wrong admonition inside the recording on the words with asterisk.
 

Attachments

Godmy

Sīmia Illustris
the e in vēnit is long (it's perfect tense in this sentence)
I haven't spent much time on the meaning of the text, but it seemed to me there was no good reason for it to be exclusively the perfect tense in opposition to the habitual/repeated present (nor have I marked it so)... but it certainly could. On the other hand (or at least after one hearing) it seemed to me her "aurīs" was long enough, but maybe I would need to hear that again.
 

Lysandra

Canis
Thank you so much, Godmy! :) Your recording was really helpful! I will work on practicing it a few more times before the presentation.
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
I've just listened to your recording ... a few thoughts (to some extent even unrelated):

- I find it hard not to aspirate voiceless plosives at the beginning of a word ... or at least I find it hard to do so without having the plosive sound like it's voiced ... when you pronounce tuae correctly it almost sounds like duae to me. It's not easy to do if you're not used to it in your mother tongue. I've heard that French speakers don't have that aspiration of initial plosives and, well, apparently also speakers of Czech ... but I'm from a nation of aspiration :(

- Most German dictionaries put lengths in words like māgnus, māius, and some also in māximus.
I can see why you wouldn't put a maron on the a in maius (because it's actually long by position). I wonder if there has been any debate concerning magnus or maximus. I've never found anything to that extent (although I can't say I've ever really digged for it, either). It always made me wonder why the a in magnus should be long when it is short in magis ... but they seem to think that the -n- has a lengthening effect on the preceding vowel (they also put macrons in words like signum, regnum or cognoscere). English dictionaries (like Lewis & Short) don't give a macron there.

- The example of cognoscere reminds me that German dictionaries also seem to think that the -sc- had a lengthening effect ... so you find cōgnōscere, pōscere or crēscere in Georges 1913 and cognoscere, poscere, crescere (etc.) in Lewis & Short.

- You said the o in credo was long, but I actually think there is some leeway. It seems to be anceps. final -o in ablative/dative singulars is always long, but you find quite a few examples of short final -o in nominatives (nemo*, Sulmo**, caro etc.), in 1st person singulars (nescio***), in some adverbs, at least if they're iambic (cito**** <> citō), and I think also in future imperatives ending in -to (although I can't think of one off the top of my head) or in words like quando
With some originally iambic words (like modo or ego), the long final o had even become very unusual by classical/Augustean times.
It seems like -ō was the standard pronunciation, but -ŏ was at the very least not unusual. It seems a little bit more colloquial, but if you give mihi without final length, you should accept the short o as well ;)


* Ov. tris. 2, 349f.
Sed neque me nuptae didicerunt furta magistro,
quodque parum nouit, nemŏ docere potest.

** tris. 4, 10, 3 Sulmŏ mihi patria est (...)

*** Cat. 85 nesciŏ sed fieri (...)

**** Ov. tris. 3, 3, 29f.
Si tamen inpleuit mea sors, quos debuit, annos,
et mihi uiuendi tam citŏ finis adest
 

Dantius

Homo Sapiens
Staff member
final -o in ablative/dative singulars is always long
The reading is very uncertain, but there may be an exception to this in Vespa's Iudicium Coci et Pistoris (which uses short final -o almost as much, if not more, than long final -o):
Sīcut Neptūnō, fervent in cācabǒ flūctūs.
But there's all sorts of other readings, or attempts to make it scan better.
 

Godmy

Sīmia Illustris
Just quickly (I don't have time atm for a longer response)

- Allen (Vox Latina) says the long vowel before "gn" is pretty much an old refuted concept... (sorry, can't be searching for the passage atm., but it will be at the end where they deal with quantities)
- crēdō <- yeah, sure, won't that be just some poetry, metrī causā etc. ?
- the unaspirated consonants = yeah, it could be challenging for German too, but I usually hear it much stronger in Anglophones...

anyway, sorry for the hasted response, it would deserve a longer one :-/
 

Bitmap

Civis Illustris
- crēdō <- yeah, sure, won't that be just some poetry, metrī causā etc. ?

Well, it struck me that it was extremely rare with -o signifying a singular dative or ablative. If you find a rare example of such an -o being short, as Dantius provided, then you could indeed argue for metrical coercion (or whatever it's called in English).

As opposed to that, a shortened final -o in the 1st pers. singular (and other instances) seems to occur comparatively often, so I find it hard to argue that it's just a matter of the metre (metre is usually a pretty weak argument, anyway, I would say).

anyway, sorry for the hasted response, it would deserve a longer one :-/

You can always write more later, I didn't expect an immediate response ;)
 
Top