Syllables of Iesus

[Consilius]

Greetings!

Hope everyone is well.

Here I come with yet another dilemma. Is the name Iesus disyllabic or trisyllabic in Ecclesiastical Latin? The Primer states that each vowel has its own syllable, except for the diphthongs. Also, all the pronunciation guides on Google state that each vowel has its own syllable. However, I almost always hear it pronounced as a disyllabic word.

Wiktionary states that it can be both, if you look under pronunciation:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Iesus

Which would be more correct, in your opinion? Two or three syllables? The Latin transliterates the Greek and in Greek it would have three.

Would also appreciate some written sources on this, if anyone has any.

 

[Issacus Divus]

I'm sure that the Roman way would have been a disyllabic "Iesus", using the consonant "I" (J).
Therefore I side with it having two syllables in the Ecclesiastical as well.

 

[Bitmap]

I'm sure that the Roman way would have been a disyllabic "Iesus", using the consonant "I" (J).

Well, there are examples like the word iambus or the name Iulus where the word is actually trisyllabic...

However, Iesus (ישוע) starts with a Jod, i.e. a semi-vowel /j/ in Hebrew, so I see no reason for the Romans to change that pronunciation.

 

[Issacus Divus]

Yes. Unless the word itself changes systematically (like Ezekiel), I don't see why the syllables would change.

 

[Consilius]

Well, there are examples like the word iambus or the name Iulus where the word is actually trisyllabic...

However, Iesus (ישוע) starts with a Jod, i.e. a semi-vowel /j/ in Hebrew, so I see no reason for the Romans to change that pronunciation.

Ok, but the Latin transliterates the Greek, not the Hebrew. The Greeks themselves did not transliterate it, but they translated the name from Hebrew. And in Greek it is trisyllabic. At least in Koine.

(Well, maybe they did not outright translate it, but they did end it with an S instead of an A, and the Latin followed their example, instead of Hebrew)

 

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

They're both transliterations, loosely, and certainly not translations. Given the variety of ways foreign names are treated in different languages, I wouldn't be too dogmatic about anything.

 

[Pacifica]

All I can say is that it's sung as two syllables in the Dies Irae.

 

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

The Hebrew would have been trisyllabic, as would the Greek transliteration.

 

[Pacifica]

Some MS spellings with an h (Ihesus) do seem to suggest a trisyllabic pronunciation. It seems likely enough that both versions coexisted at some point, but I don't know any more than that.

 

[Glabrigausapes]

The Hebrew would have been trisyllabic, as would the Greek transliteration.

Does that follow? Or at least go against your disinclination to 'being dogmatic'? Initial iota was syllabic in Ancient Greek (not too sure about Koine), but initial yod was not (syllabic) in Classical Hebrew, so that, if either form is trisyllabic, it would be for different reasons, nicht wahr?

I also wonder why those ol' Hebrews gave the name a circumflex. Correct me if I'm wrong, Etaoin, but in the case of words like ruach, even though the diacritic is written in the regular way (below the final chet), it is not realized as rucha. Whereas the case of yēshu'a is different, and the ayin (whatever sound it made) plays the role of syllabic onset. Wouldn't the result be a distinctly longer pronunciation, and the circumflex, which no longer represented a falling pitch but still denoted vowel length, be thought to reflect this more accurately?

 

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

I didn't say the names were trisyllabic in the same way, but they are trisyllabic, and it's nice to be on safe ground. Keeping three syllables in a transliteration that wasn't all that close to the original may have been a consideration, but then again maybe it wasn't. Examples like Latin Iacobus turning into James in English and Diego in Spanish are the sort of thing that makes me despair of finding reasons as to why particular forms are chosen.

 

[Glabrigausapes]

Ah, the 'as' of 'likewise', not the 'as' of 'since'.

 

[Consilius]

Ok, so I found that it seems to depend on the spelling.

If it begins with an "I", then it should be trisyllabic, but if it begins with a "J", then it is disyllabic.

"J" seems to be considered a consonant and, because of that, is not a separate syllable. On Wiktionary as well you can see that the number of syllables differ depending on whether "J" or "I" is used.

According to this, in traditional or usual Ecclesiastical Latin, Iesus should be trisyllabic, since it is almost always written with an "I" (talking about official documents, like the Nova Vulgata, Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, etc.)

 

[Pacifica]

I'm afraid not.

The /j/ sound is often written i in Latin.

The letter j didn't exist in Roman times, and i served for both. At some point, j was created, but for a long time i and j were both able to represent both sounds, while being used in different positions.

At some much later point, j came to be used to represent /j/.

Nowadays, some Latinists use only i, while others make the i/j distinction — I think more do the former.

 

[Quasus]

> I think more do the former.

Otherwise, questions like this one would not arise.

 

[Pacifica]

So if you're reading a text that consistently represents /j/ as j and you find the spelling Iesus in that text, then you can assume the author (or editor) had a trisyllabic pronunciation in mind. But you can't assume that the spelling Iesus always represents a trisyllabic pronunciation, since not everyone makes the distinction. You need to see what the author's (or editor's) usage is.

 

[Issacus Divus]

But you can't assume that the spelling Iesus always represents a trisyllabic pronunciation, since not everyone makes the distinction. You need to see what the author's (or editor's) usage is.

Right. Although some authors are unclear with syllable distinction.