I had to delete it; it was the wrong file I uploaded.Not if you don't include whatever link you meant to include.
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?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.
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.For some time I've suspected that Jerome's pronunciation was more classical than what we understand today as Church Latin.
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.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."
I agree with you there.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.
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.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.