Vowel quality vs. quantity

[Godmy]

I don't mind fact-checking or critical thinking (in phonetics, an audio editor is your best friend or an application like Praat, which is free; I bid you to use them to the their full ability to get to the facts, to see for yourself), I just felt you weren't taking the evidence/the facts too seriously as you were checking them or using some subjective or local views to draw an objective general conclusion. If I was mistaken, my bad, but I suppose my teaching abilities are just limited sometimes by how much time and energy I want to invest in something which I think is best defended by itself (by the studies, the literature and other academics), hence my little patience.

Be well & bye!

 

[interprete]

I just felt you weren't taking the evidence/the facts too seriously as you were checking them or using some subjective or local views to draw an objective general conclusion.

I didn't draw any conclusion. I merely questioned the realism of some claims and was looking for explanations as to why they are so widely accepted despite being so counter-intuitive, at least for a dilettante like me.

MOD EDIT

 

[Glabrigausapes]

I live in an English speaking area where there is a phonemic distinction between short and long vowels

Wuzzat? Do you live in 10th-century Warwickshire?
Only kidding. But really, whereabouts livest thou, my guy?

 

[Bestiola]

I've removed the personal attacks and bickering. Let's play nicely, thank you.

 

[Montefortino]

Hi all.
I have a doubt: mono-syllables with E or O like REX, LEX, VOX are long by nature, aren't they ?
The E or O vocal in those mono-syllables are short or long ? Those syllables are long because they end with a consonant letter, but is their vocal long or short ?
I mean: if I have to speak, I would pronounce with an open E/O (like in english "net" or "dot") or with a closed one ?

Thanks in advance!
SALVETE

 

[Glabrigausapes]

Those syllables are long because they end with a consonant letter, but is their vocal long or short?

Technically, the vowel itself may be long or short (e.g. lēx, lēgis vs. grex, grĕgis), but since, as you've said, the syllable is long regardless, it is doubtful that the Roman would have done anything other than distinguish by quality, and the general model there, I think, is that the long vowel is closed. So I imagine:

lēx /leks/
grex /grεks/

 

[Quasus]

Why would it be short in lēx? I’d say,

lēx [le:ks]
grex [grεks]
pāx [pa:ks]
fax [faks]

 

[Montefortino]

Let's see the outcome in italian:

• lēx [le:ks] --> légge (closed e), so the long E in latin is compatible
• rēx [re:ks] --> in standard italian ré (closed e, but in some northern regions rè), so the long E in latin is compatible
• vōx [vo:ks] --> vóce (closed o), so the long O in latin is compatible

If the logic is the same, the word NOS (first plural person, personal pronoun) would be nōs [no:s] since the italian outcome is nói (closed o)

 

[Clemens]

It's entirely likely that Classical Latin vowels differed both in quantity and quality, but that it was the quantity that was phonemic and which the speakers were consciously aware of. Once distinctions of length stopped being maintained, the quality of the vowels became the organizing principle, which involved a repositioning of some vowels (short i becoming e, for example).

It's very common for native speakers of languages to be doing all sorts of phonetic distinctions that they aren't aware of, such as the lengthening of English vowels before voiced stops. We aren't aware we're doing it, what we're listening for is whether the stop is voiced or not. If in some future time, we stopped distinguishing stops by voicing, we may well start to rely on vowel length to make the distinction between bet and bed.

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

It's very common for native speakers of languages to be doing all sorts of phonetic distinctions that they aren't aware of, such as the lengthening of English vowels before voiced stops. We aren't aware we're doing it, what we're listening for is whether the stop is voiced or not. If in some future time, we stopped distinguishing stops by voicing, we may well start to rely on vowel length to make the distinction between bet and bed.

This is analogous to the way unvoiced ſtops may become ſlightly aſpirated, or voiced ſtops prenaſalised in various languages, as ways of reinforcing the voiced/unvoiced diſtinction, which might otherwiſe be too eaſily miſſed in what are by nature the very briefeſt of ſpeech ſounds. Clemens' final muſing here indeed goes ſome way towards explaining how conſonant ſhifts, ſuch as ſeen in Grimm's Law, might have occured.

 

[sparkyyy]

Since you are Czech, I wanted to ask you something about vowel quantities but I hope I'm not going too much off-topic: does your language make it compulsory to preserve quantities even in words that cannot be confused?
I know that vowel quantity in latin can help differenciate some verb forms, like venit and vēnit for example. But I wonder what the motive would be to have a long a at the beginning of āmbulare for example, when it doesn't help achieve any additional clarity. Do you have similar examples in your own language of words that have long vowels in odd places that people pronounce correctly even though shortening them would not lead to any confusion?

Thanks again for your time.

I might be bumping an old thread but Czech vowels clearly have different quantities and I am pretty sure the quality isn't exactly the same either (at least in Bohemia). Now coming back to the quantity of vowels in Czech, there rarely is any confusion as most words don't have a direct short vowel counterpart. It just sounds weird, unnatural and off. Inability to pronounce long vowels is one of the most obvious ways of distinguishing a foreign speaker from a native one.

 

[brightrising]

I also apologize for bumping an old thread, but this question has also been bothering me for years.

When I speak to Latin scholars in the English-speaking world, it seems that Allen's Vox Latina is still gospel regarding the pronunciation of long and short vowels, and that is how I learned it starting from Wheelock (distinguishing quantity and quality).

However, when I spoke to some Latin teachers/students in Europe, particularly in Italy, they seem to deny/ignore the difference in quality and focus only on the quantity, and they criticized my pronunciation as being "Anglicized". When I mentioned Allen's work, they also criticized him of introducing an English-language bias into his analysis and that there was no difference in quality between long and short vowels. Is there any scholarship to back this up?

Here are some examples of people who subscribe to the no quality only quantity approach:

ScorpioMartianus

Metatron

I know everyone has strong opinons on this, but within the global academic discourse, is there still a debate over whether there was a quality distinction as well as a quantity distinction for long and short vowels in Classical Latin/Reconstructed Pronunciation.

Thank you

 

[Godmy]

When I mentioned Allen's work, they also criticized him of introducing an English-language bias into his analysis and that there was no difference in quality between long and short vowels. Is there any scholarship to back this up?

No, they are pulling it out of their ***. Italians are sometime sensitive about this, but it's just their hurt feelings that their unique native viewpoint on it matters so little, that's all. Short answer, I have to leave

Be safe to ignore it. Allen's is an academical material with citations and resources stated, unless somebody puts forward something else, they should better shut up.

I am Czech and I am aware of no English bias in Allen's. And I'm quite sensitive about English aspects in the Latin pronunciation.

 

[Godmy]

Especially when it comes to pronunciation, in Latin, don't listen to Italians and their lamentations, in Ancient Greek, don't listen to Greeks and their lamentations... that's the general advice.

 

[Iáson]

I've seen a lot of videos etc. and peoples' opinions bandied about on the matter, but not a lot of recent scholarship. Scorpio Martianus cites an article supporting the quality theory in one of his videos, but I've never been able to get hold of it. Vox Latina has the arguments on the existence of quality distinctions; but that was a while ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's been newer scholarship since. However, the latest articles that show up on Année philologique are from the 70s.

Btw., brightrising, what you say isn't completely true: Scorpio Martianus seems to posit different qualities of e and o in that video, although I'm not entirely sure why, and I don't think it's along the same lines as Allen.

My impression is that most teachers and students of Latin in Italy and the rest of Europe do not, in fact, emphasise quantity over quality. They simply ignore both and pronounce it like Italian (etc.). Likewise, most Anglophone teachers and students do not emphasise quality over quantity; they just ignore both and pronounce it like English...

 

[Glabrigausapes]

I can't offer any more than Godmy already has for this thread, but I will say this:

From a comparative/historical perspective, the 'European' view that only vowel quantity makes a difference is facile. It pretends that the written language exists in a vacuum, that the speakers aimed at perfection in writing when really all they wanted was to understand one another (utility), & that the literary standard accurately reflects the *spoken standard.

When we consider that these vowel sounds are very often the result of an earlier sound (or sounds) undergoing some fundamental change, it seems hard to believe that the resulting symbols would be a perfect fit. Consider the 'u' vowel:

The Italic family evidences a considerable amount of vowel reduction, just as does our language, and a distinctive example is to be found in the '2nd declension' (o-stems). Compare the Greek χόρτος with its Latin equivalent hortus (and more impressively Oscan húrz, where 'z' = /t͡s/ as in German). The accented vowel retains (ostensibly) its quality, where the unaccented (atonic) vowel changes quality.

On the other hand, the long 'ū' sound is most often the result of a merging of two (or more) earlier vowels (monophthongization), as in dūcō < Old Latin douco.

My point is that it is equally as unlikely that the reduced, short 'u' of the o-stem nom. should have so distinct a quality as /u/, given that it vanishes entirely in some words (e.g. puer) and regularly in sister dialects, as it is unlikely that the merged, long 'ū' should have so indistinct a quality as we suppose the short 'u' did (that is /ʊ/). In short, there's no equivalence.

Part of the problem is the (mistaken) thought that Greek also had minimal pairs like ε:η, which were only supposed to be distinguished by quality quantity. The idea being that if Greek is like this (and it's not), then Latin must be also (and it's not).

*A language that strove a little harder in the other direction was Sanscrit, but even the pundits had troubles of their own!

 

[Bitmap]

Part of the problem is the (mistaken) thought that Greek also had minimal pairs like ε:η, which were only supposed to be distinguished by quality. The idea being that if Greek is like this (and it's not), then Latin must be also (and it's not).

You mean quantity, right?

 

[Glabrigausapes]

Oops.

 

[Godmy]

and the rest of Europe

This isn't true in fact. Almost every European country has its own model of a "medieval Latin pronunciation" and most of them are quite alike and quite UNLIKE Italian, Italian is the most different and "weird of them" (having "sh" and "ch" as in "chalk" and many other oddities). If you ignore vowel qualities and quantities (and more rarely a different consonant), you could say there exists a *Central European [medieval] pronunciation of Latin that is used (in some schools, some occasions and technical Latin terms pronunciation) in Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania... almost everywhere in Europe but in Italy. In France(& Belgium) and Spain there is a kind of "evolved" form of this pronunciation (a bit more dissimilar to how other nations pronounce it) and in England this form has developed the most to something totally unique... as not to be used much anymore, as you know the best, but in some Latin terms pronunciations. But when it comes to the traditional pronunciations and Europe, Italian pronunciation is very very distinct for Italy, mostly ignored anywhere else.

Just for your information

*I say "central", because that's how it's called here in an academic area in the philological circles

 

[Iáson]

This isn't true in fact. Almost every European country has its own model of a "medieval Latin pronunciation" and most of them are quite alike and quite UNLIKE Italian, Italian is the most different and "weird of them" (having "sh" and "ch" as in "chalk" and many other oddities). If you ignore vowel qualities and quantities (and more rarely a different consonant), you could say there exists a *Central European [medieval] pronunciation of Latin that is used (in some schools, some occasions and technical Latin terms pronunciation) in Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania... almost everywhere in Europe but in Italy. In France(& Belgium) and Spain there is a kind of "evolved" form of this pronunciation (a bit more dissimilar to how other nations pronounce it) and in England this form has developed the most to something totally unique... as not to be used much anymore, as you know the best, but in some Latin terms pronunciations. But when it comes to the traditional pronunciations and Europe, Italian pronunciation is very very distinct for Italy, mostly ignored anywhere else.

Just for your information

*I say "central", because that's how it's called here in an academic area in the philological circles

Oh, I meant more that each country pronounces it in a manner fitting the phonetics of the language of that country, rather than all being like Italy. Sorry, that wasn't clear. I didn't know about the Central European medieval pronunciation.