Letter "h" in Ecclesiastical Latin

Issacus Divus

H₃rḗǵs h₁n̥dʰéri diwsú
And the plot thickens.

Anyways, I really want to see want Iáson means.
 

Iáson

Cívis Illústris
Well, not according to his Wikipedia page (!). He was born in Illyria and apparently mentions speaking Illyrian somewhere, although to be fair I can't find the reference in the passage alluded to by Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet (Commentary on Isaiah 7.19). Sadly PHI doesn't go that far.
 

Issacus Divus

H₃rḗǵs h₁n̥dʰéri diwsú
Wikipedia actually is trustworthy in My sight. Sometimes.
But if we can't find his attested Illyrianess, what then?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Not if you don't include whatever link you meant to include.
 

Issacus Divus

H₃rḗǵs h₁n̥dʰéri diwsú
I think what Terry gave us is great information on pronounciation. Also just noticed that capitalized "My".
 

Gregorius Textor

Civis Insanus
For some time I've suspected that Jerome's pronunciation was more classical than what we understand today as Church Latin.

That's an interesting question. I would imagine it sounded somewhat like Church Latin, but I don't know — and I realize it's a bit ironic to say this in a thread where we're having some trouble defining Church Latin anyway. A difference could have been that, unlike in Church Latin, he wouldn't have pronounced final m's. But it's very likely he pronounced ae and oe as e and his c's were palatalized becore e and i, like in Church Latin.
St Jerome lived in the fourth century. Vulgar Latin isn't limited to a certain period. Every period of natively-spoken Latin had its Vulgar Latin, which simply means the people's everyday Latin as opposed to literary Latin.
One reason for this is that proper names in the Vulgate like Cis and Cedar are translated in English Bibles as Kish and Kedar, and I suppose that both Jerome and the English translators wanted to get the right consonant sound from the Hebrew name. He could have used CH, if not K, right?

Another thought is that his contemporary Augustine of Hippo shows awareness of the distinction between long and short vowels -- a distinction which is lost in modern Church Latin. He wants teachers to make it clear that in os meum, for example, it is os (bone), the singular of ossa, not ōs (mouth), the singular of ōra (On Christian Doctrine, Book III, ch. 3). And he comments "And for this reason the vulgar idiom is frequently more useful in conveying the sense than the pure speech of the educated. For I would rather have the barbarism, non est absconditum a te ossum meum, than have the passage in better Latin, but the sense less clear."
 

Iáson

Cívis Illústris
For some time I've suspected that Jerome's pronunciation was more classical than what we understand today as Church Latin.
Quite. But the notion of 'Church Latin' means simply 'the pronunciation that is associated with certain churches in the modern period' rather than 'the pronunciation of the Church Fathers'. I don't think the coming of Christianity is associated with any particular phonological change.

He wants teachers to make it clear that in os meum, for example, it is os (bone), the singular of ossa, not ōs (mouth), the singular of ōra (On Christian Doctrine, Book III, ch. 3). And he comments "And for this reason the vulgar idiom is frequently more useful in conveying the sense than the pure speech of the educated. For I would rather have the barbarism, non est absconditum a te ossum meum, than have the passage in better Latin, but the sense less clear."
In this case, however, this passage suggests that the distinction was not made, simply because the implication is that os and ōs could not be told apart easily (and hence the need for the 'vulgar' form ossum to make the distinction). But other evidence does suggest strongly that in many environments the contrast between long and short vowels was maintained, although probably as a distinction of vowel quality rather than quantity.
 

Gregorius Textor

Civis Insanus
Quite. But the notion of 'Church Latin' means simply 'the pronunciation that is associated with certain churches in the modern period' rather than 'the pronunciation of the Church Fathers'. I don't think the coming of Christianity is associated with any particular phonological change.
I agree with you there.

In this case, however, this passage suggests that the distinction was not made, simply because the implication is that os and ōs could not be told apart easily (and hence the need for the 'vulgar' form ossum to make the distinction). But other evidence does suggest strongly that in many environments the contrast between long and short vowels was maintained, although probably as a distinction of vowel quality rather than quantity.
Maybe it indicates the distinction was not made, but I think it depends on whether he was referring to the written or spoken word. In any case it shows that Augustine himself was aware of the distinction between long and short, even if some people did not observe it. I think that's about all I meant to say -- that, and that since Augustine made the distinction, Jerome might have too.
 
Top