Latin Language during and after the Late Antiquity. Originally: Pronounciation of Aetius

[Diocle]

That should certainly not be the case. I am bound by the same rules as you, and I'm only a member just as you, only I have some local moderating abilities. My advice to you, to stop use race as a base of argument, was only that, an advice. And it was not done in my role as moderator.

And when it comes to the debate about Aëtius name, I have, at this time, said all I wanted to say.

I have a lot to say, ( no! not against you or your actions) but like I said, I stopped, and this is my choice because in this kind of discussion is too easy losing the right course and take imprevedible directions, and I do not want with my arguments, ( in which I firmly belive) create contrasts that I cannot control.

In the end one last thing: please Joar, belive me, the term ethnicity is wrong. I'm an old internazionalist, maybe outdated, but I firmly belive in the old 3 words of the '89: Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, for me the years 1789, 1848, 1871, 1917 are not figures but fundamental steps to build the future of humankind.
The accuse of ethnicity is one of the worse thing that someone can say about me or my argouments, I'm not complaining to you about an insult, I know well that you didn't want to offend me, I complain to myself about my inability to explain my argouments: I wanted to speak of sound, music, colour of an ancient language which i feel living (no, not dead) in my heart and in my mind; I wanted to speak about a culture, the Romance culture, which unite different people like French, Spanish, Italian, I wanted to offer a linguistical refreshing 'Voiage en Italie' for english speakers, and what I provoked: war, a flame war about ethnicity, nationalism, etc... I wanted to unite and I divided.

positive note: if Latin generate so a great, passionate reaction it is alive, at least in the heart of the persons which posted in this strange tread.


I don't know what you think, but for me, if you want, you can close this tread!

Vale!

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Of course it is alive, my friend! It is just that nowadays it receives many new names like Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese, etc., etc. Long live the king!

[Diocle]

Of course it is alive, my friend! It is just that nowadays it receives many new names like Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese, etc., etc. Long live the king!

A great, old and feared professor of Linguistica and Letteratura and Filologia Romanza at Università Cattolica di Milano started any new annual cycle of lessons saing exactly the same words that you said and ended saing: " Remember gentlemen, you are speaking the XX century Latin!".
I'm proud to be in agreement with you about this argument sir!

[justme]

If I may, I'll add my two bits in this interesting philological debate...

I'll probably mostly side with our Italian brother Diocle in the debate - apparently a true philhellene (friend of us greeks) who's studied the classics too [don't forget what they say - italiani e greci, una faccia, una raza, even in the economic crisis ] - with only two exceptions...

A) Aetius should probably be pronounced (historically) as A-E-Tioos (the "e" pronounced as in English set), since it's more likely derived from greek "ΑΕΤΟΣ" (eagle), therefore it should be pronounced that way.
B) Also, I'm convinced that C in latin was pronounced as a "K" (as in English kite) - at least in schools in greece we're taught so, thus "civilis" is pronounced here "kivilis".

Oh and something else - based off latin names written in greek script in epigraphic evidence (from the imperial period), latin "v" which is interpreted as english "v" or english "u" ("β" or "oo" sounds) was probably only pronounced as "u" ("oo" sound) - eg ΦΛΑΟΥΙΟΣ ΟΥΑΛΕΡΙΟΣ (FLAooIooS ooALERIooS), etc

Anyway, that's just my two bits from what we're taught here.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

We're taught in america that C is k, AE is I, u is oo, and there's not much else i can think of right now... ii is e, one or two others.

[Diocle]

If I may, I'll add my two bits in this interesting philological debate...

I'll probably mostly side with our Italian brother Diocle in the debate - apparently a true philhellene (friend of us greeks) who's studied the classics too [don't forget what they say - italiani e greci, una faccia, una raza, even in the economic crisis ] - with only two exceptions...

A) Aetius should probably be pronounced (historically) as A-E-Tioos (the "e" pronounced as in English set), since it's more likely derived from greek "ΑΕΤΟΣ" (eagle), therefore it should be pronounced that way.
B) Also, I'm convinced that C in latin was pronounced as a "K" (as in English kite) - at least in schools in greece we're taught so, thus "civilis" is pronounced here "kivilis".

Oh and something else - based off latin names written in greek script in epigraphic evidence (from the imperial period), latin "v" which is interpreted as english "v" or english "u" ("β" or "oo" sounds) was probably only pronounced as "u" ("oo" sound) - eg ΦΛΑΟΥΙΟΣ ΟΥΑΛΕΡΙΟΣ (FLAooIooS ooALERIooS), etc

Anyway, that's just my two bits from what we're taught here.

The tread is still open, so... changing my mind and my decision (like any good Italian) I keep writing to exprime my thanks to the forum members that contine posting here, they love Latin that in some form is still alive in their minds, in particoular thanks to Justme with a precisation:

No i'm not apparently I'm totally and truly a philhellene Italian!!!
I ever hated Fascism, but one of the most important motivation in this hate was the Fascist decision to invade Greece in WWII (and France), for me is today a national and personal shame! Mussolini was a traitor, a traitor of our common Western Civilization.
The great Italian poet Ugo Foscolo that I love, figth for the Indipendence of Greece! he came from Zante (it.Zacinto), here only a fragment of his lyric to remember that there were Italians who never forgot their cultural.. fatherland! (here I'm using a great 'Barbaric' word!)

Speaking about the land in which he was born, Zante:

"..Tu non altro che il canto avrai del figlio,
O materna mia terra: a noi prescrisse
Il fato illacrimata sepoltura."

(I cannot try to translate, to translate Foscolo in English is out of my capabilities!)

I studied architecture, and I love Art, History and Culture, for me:

Art=Beauty, Beauty=Mesaure, Mesaure=Proportion, Proportion=Classicità(Classical Antiquity), Classicità(Classical Antiquity)=Greece!


About the soud of Latin alphabetic 'V' is a great debatable question but here in Italy we prefer to distinguish using the Italians sounds of 'U' and 'V' according to the circumstances, exemple:

GENS VALERIA we use the sound 'V' like in english 'over' or 'above'

VLTRAMVNDANVS we use the sound 'U' like in English 'full'

obviously here I don't speak of the single grammatical rules which exist to determine the single specific occasions, this is not a tread about Latin grammar, I'm only giving some colour or sound to an ancient common great language still alive.

Vale!

[justme]

The tread is still open, so... changing my mind and my decision (like any good Italian) I keep writing to exprime my thanks to the forum members that contine posting here, they love Latin that in some form is still alive in their minds, in particoular thanks to Justme with a precisation:

No i'm not apparently I'm totally and truly a philhellene Italian!!!
I ever hated Fascism, but one of the most important motivation in this hate was the Fascist decision to invade Greece in WWII (and France), for me is today a national and personal shame! Mussolini was a traitor, a traitor of our common Western Civilization.
The great Italian poet Ugo Foscolo that I'love, figth for the Indipendence of Greece! he came from Zante (it.Zacinto), here only a fragment of his lyric to remember that there were Italians who never forgot their cultural.. fatherland! (here I'm using a great 'Barbaric' word!)

Speaking about the land in which he was born, Zante:

"..Tu non altro che il canto avrai del figlio,
O materna mia terra: a noi prescrisse
Il fato illacrimata sepoltura."

(I cannot try to translate, to translate Foscolo in English is out of my capabilities!)

I studied architecture, and I love Art, History and Culture, for me:

Art=Beauty, Beauty=Mesaure, Mesaure=Proportion, Proportion=Classicità(Classical Antiquity), Classicità(Classical Antiquity)=Greece!


About the soud of Latin alphabetic 'V' is a great debatable question but here in Italy we prefer to distinguish using the Italians sounds of 'U' and 'V' according to the circumstances, exemple:

GENS VALERIA we use the sound 'V' like in english 'over' or 'above'

ULTRAMUNDANUS we use the sound 'U' like in English 'full'

Vale!

VIVE VALEQUE (latin)
ΖΗΘΙ ΚΑΙ ΥΓΙΑΙΝΕ (greek)

loosely translated as "live long and prosper" in "vulcan"

PS: about the pronounciation of "V", the same rule distinguishing between "v" and "u" is taught here - but apparently in antiquity they preferred to pronounce it as "u" (there's epigraphic evidence for both "β" and "ου" being used for the letter "V" but it seems "ου" is more prevalent)

[Renatus]

Oh and something else - based off latin names written in greek script in epigraphic evidence (from the imperial period), latin "v" which is interpreted as english "v" or english "u" ("β" or "oo" sounds) was probably only pronounced as "u" ("oo" sound) - eg ΦΛΑΟΥΙΟΣ ΟΥΑΛΕΡΙΟΣ (FLAooIooS ooALERIooS), etc

(there's epigraphic evidence for both "β" and "ου" being used for the letter "V" but it seems "ου" is more prevalent)

This is a point that interests me. In England, we are generally taught that the Latin v, when used as a consonant, was pronounced like the English w. The Abbinaeus Archive has vexillatio rendered as ουιξιλλατίων (42,12) and this is found in other papyri. However, it also has it as βιξιλλατίων (16,9) and this is found in Malalas, who also renders Victor as Βικτορ. So my question is, How should β be pronounced? Other evidence suggests that it was often pronounced like an English b. Was there a change in the Late Roman period?

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

This is a point that interests me. In England, we are generally taught that the Latin v, when used as a consonant, was pronounced like the English w. The Abbinaeus Archive has vexillatio rendered as ουιξιλλατίων (42,12) and this is found in other papyri. However, it also has it as βιξιλλατίων (16,9) and this is found in Malalas, who also renders Victor as Βικτορ. So my question is, How should β be pronounced? Other evidence suggests that it was often pronounced like an English b. Was there a change in the Late Roman period?

Both ways could be considered correct depending on the time frame. If you need details you can ask . And yes, there was a change in the Late Roman Period.


I’d like to say something else on this topic if I may and that is that we have to take into consideration that languages, like any other living organism (as they can be considered to be since they reflect the evolution of a society which is in constant transformation), change and adapt in time and space. A language - as the civilization or society where it is spoken - never remains the same and is bounded by a determined epoch and geographical position. So, the way a language is used by its speakers depends on the time frame and location where it is used. In the same way modern languages sometimes have different (but similar) sounds and even structures (think of British and American English or the Spanish from Spain and Latin America), ancient languages were subjected to the same phenomena.
Latin evolved and transformed throughout the centuries and passed through several stages. The extension of the Empire made certain the existence of regionalisms based both on the point of evolution that the Latin language had reached when the Romans conquered that region, and the influence of the languages native to said region. Another factor to take into account is the segmentation of the Roman society where only a few were wealthy enough to have a good education while the overwhelming majority of the population had no access to it. Thus, it existed a very “artificially preserved” version of Latin taught to and shared by the nobility who resisted any natural evolution trend to which the language might have been exposed. These few spoke the ancient and classical Latin they strove to preserve out of any potential “contamination” and lived in this “linguistic bubble” for many centuries almost until the fall of the West or while Latin was the official language of the surviving East Roman Empire.
That’s the Latin that almost every modern school teaches nowadays. The classical phonetic value of diphthongs like AE, similar to the English I, or consonant V which, we are taught, sounded like English W. As far as we know, those teachings are correct but only applicable to this “artificial language” created by the Roman elite.
There was, on the other hand, and at the same time, another version, that of the living Latin spoken by the population and that showed shades in its vocabulary, phonetics and even syntax. This ‘other Latin’ saw the evolution and change of some of its parts depending, I say it again, on geography and even the personality and backgrounds of the community where Latin was spoken. It was this version of the language which showed the changes that mark a difference between classical and Vulgar Latin and later the Late Latin which in turn gave birth to proto Romance and the modern Romance languages.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

We're also taught V is pronounced like a W

[Diocle]

When Pseudo Romanus speaks about Latin and his transformation we must only listen, learn and say a big thank you!
Thanks Pseudo Romanus your posts are invaluable!

What can I add to the explanation of Pseudo Romanus?
Nothing only a game:

Speaking of evolution of the Latin, and trying only to advance a suggestion about why we, belonging to the various Romance cultures, fell this old language still alive in our heart and mind, I'll propouse a sort of game, I'll write down a text, I'll not explain what is it, who did write this text, when was this text written and the most important what is the language spoken in this text, a great part of you guys will immediatly identify this document, to the others I'll say that is quite important for the birth of the Romance Languages, so these are the questions:

What is this strange Language? Late Latin? French? Italian Voulgar? Spanish?

When this document was written?

What is this document?

and more important question:
Do you understand the content or the mining of this text?

I can understand the content and the mining of this text!

When the first time, some (?) years ago, I read it, I tohught: "But...what's this?... it sound in some parts exactly like my grandmother speaking in her Alpin Piedmontese dialect half French half Italian!!".
I suggest you this funny and in some way ingenuos game, only to explain in a direct and simple form why the slow evolution of Latin in the Romance cultures and then the birth of the national Romance Languages are phenomenon characterized by a strong historical, cultural, geographical continuity, and in the end why, we Romance speakers, say that we are speaking the XXI c. Latin and why we say that the Latin is still alive!

Here the text:

" Pro Deo amur et pro christian poblo et nostro commun salvament, d'ist di in avant, in quant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si salvarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo, et in aiudha et in cadhuna cosa, si cum om per dreit son fradra salvar dift, in o quid il mi altresi fazet, et ab Ludher nul plaid nunqua'm prindrai, qui, meon vol, cist meon fradre Karle in damno sit.

Si Lodhuvigs sgrament, que son fradre Karlo jurat, conservat, et karlus, meos sendra, de suo part non lo's tanit, si io returnar non l'int pois, ne io ne neuls cui eo returnar int pois, in nulla aiudha contra Lodhuvig nun li iv er."

[Renatus]

Both ways could be considered correct depending on the time frame. If you need details you can ask . And yes, there was a change in the Late Roman Period.

I'm not sure how to interpret the smiley but, if you are serious, I would like to have chapter and verse.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

@Diocle, some of it translates somewhat as latin, but it's mostly some sort of vandalized mix with Latin, French, and Itallian, maybe a lil romansche from Switzerland.


If Romanian is supposedly the Closest to Latin (which baffles me considering that area was a cultural Melting pot) why don't we look to them for pronounciation?

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

I'm not sure how to interpret the smiley but, if you are serious, I would like to have chapter and verse.

Please, interpret it as it was intended: a genuine offer for help . Since I've noticed that you're interested in Late Latin, instead of giving you only the answer for your question on the "V" letter, I'll give you a link for an online copy of one of my favourite books on this subject. Enjoy it .
http://books.google.com/books?id=EY4...page&q&f=false
It's old but good, a good oldie

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I'm learning Classical, but most of the Latin I knew previously was Vulgar

For example Stultio quam Asini is "Stupid ass" in Classical, but in Vulgar I don't think the quam is used and instead of "Asini" it's "Onagri" if I'm correct.

[Diocle]

@Diocle, some of it translates somewhat as latin, but it's mostly some sort of vandalized mix with Latin, French, and Itallian, maybe a lil romansche from Switzerland.


If Romanian is supposedly the Closest to Latin (which baffles me considering that area was a cultural Melting pot) why don't we look to them for pronounciation?

Magister Militum like a good Rogers Ranger, you found a good path so continue your reserch.....

But the term 'Vandalized' isn't appropriate, we must remember, like explained Pseudo Romanus, that the Latin language we learn is that used by the elites of the Roman world in the first or second century of the imperial age, they would never use the language spoken by milions of citizens in a so enormous Empire, but is the Latin spoken by Vulgus that became in a slow process Italian, French, Spanish, Portugese, Rumanian. One thing is very important, the spoken Latin was understandable, maybe with some difficulties, from the citizen of the empire from Antiochia to Colonia Agrippina or from Numantia to Arete.
What was this, only oral, language in continuous change, but able to guarantee the comunication over a so large territorial estension?
It was like you say "Vandalized" from the erliest age, if Catullus in his lyrics use the Voulgar Caballus like the Italian Cavallo (En: Horse) and not the more literary term Equus, or the adjective Bellus like the Italian Bello (En: Beautiful) and not Pulcher.
The spoken Latin wasn't a vandalized language but was differnt from the crystallized language we learn today.
The strange is that was just this oral language, the Voulgar Latin, spoken by the Vulgus, that had the strength to survive, that became firstly the Romance language of the Dark Age and then National languages of the various Romance nations.
The other, the Latin of the elites, the language of Cicero, Cato, Virgilius, Livius, Lucretius and all the great ancient authors, died with the elites of the state which represented, or survived in the form of the hieratic language of the Church.

Sorry forgot! New indication for the enigma: The text in the Post 51 was written in a very important occasion and in a very important place for the European History!

[Renatus]

Please, interpret it as it was intended: a genuine offer for help . Since I've noticed that you're interested in Late Latin, instead of giving you only the answer for your question on the "V" letter, I'll give you a link for an online copy of one of my favourite books on this subject. Enjoy it .
http://books.google.com/books?id=EY4...page&q&f=false
It's old but good, a good oldie

I hope that I did not offend you when I queried your smiley. If so, I apologise.

Unfortunately, the link to Google Books only seems to give access to it in the US. However, with the title I was able to find it on the Internet Archive. I could have downloaded it but I then found that I could buy it quite cheaply on Amazon, so I have ordered a copy.

It is obviously quite technical and may take a bit of absorbing. So, until I receive it and can get to grips with it, and because you are obviously familiar with it, can you provide an answer to the "V" question? When Malalas writes Βικτορ, should this be pronounced 'Biktor', 'Wiktor' or 'Viktor'? And, if one of the last two, how would the reader differentiate its pronunciation from that of (say) βαρβαροι? Or would he or she simply know from long association with the language, much as English-speakers can cope with the multiple pronunciations of '-ough', know the difference between 'cow' and 'crow' and distinguish between the alternative pronunciations of 'row'?

Rep to you for your highly informative post #49 and the helpful #54. I wanted to say this in a comment to the rep but, for some reason, the system would let me do it. If you find that you have an anonymous rep, that is mine!

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

All you English people with your pronounciation difficulties are funny :p

How many of you learned Latin in school?

well, I speak Arabic, which is phonologically not that different from Latin (even though the two languages are not related)..let's just say in other words, that I cheat my round the fact that I also speak English natively

and yes, I'm replying because I did take Latin.

[Joar]

A) Aetius should probably be pronounced (historically) as A-E-Tioos (the "e" pronounced as in English set), since it's more likely derived from greek "ΑΕΤΟΣ" (eagle), therefore it should be pronounced that way.

Well, then you're not siding with Diocle, but with me...

And, yes, I also believe that Aëtius is a Greek name. If one take a quick look at other prominent figures who went by this name, they're all found in the Greek speaking East.

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Well, then you're not siding with Diocle, but with me...

And, yes, I also believe that Aëtius is a Greek name. If one take a quick look at other prominent figures who went by this name, they're all found in the Greek speaking East.

Actually that's what intrigues me. From the beginnig, Diocle and you, Joar, have agreed in the pronunciation of Aetiu's name. i still don't understand why you guys haven't noticed .

When Pseudo Romanus speaks about Latin and his transformation we must only listen, learn and say a big thank you!

Holly cow! Ok, you've heard the man! Listen to and thank PSEUDO ROMANUS!

I hope that I did not offend you when I queried your smiley. If so, I apologise.

So, until I receive it and can get to grips with it, and because you are obviously familiar with it, can you provide an answer to the "V" question? When Malalas writes Βικτορ, should this be pronounced 'Biktor', 'Wiktor' or 'Viktor'? And, if one of the last two, how would the reader differentiate its pronunciation from that of (say) βαρβαροι? Or would he or she simply know from long association with the language, much as English-speakers can cope with the multiple pronunciations of '-ough', know the difference between 'cow' and 'crow' and distinguish between the alternative pronunciations of 'row'?

It’s OK, no worries . One never can be sure what the attitude of people whose faces you can’t see are.
Anyway, I’ll give you an answer out of the top of my head as I’m not home right now.
On letter V, let’s start with the elite’s Latin, the one spoken by a group of the nobility, remember? It may be a safe move to assume that this group maintained its pronunciation as close to that of previous epochs. So, I’m inclined to believe that overall, among this group of the elite, V continued to be pronounced like the English W. Although I also think that some “external influence” was impossible to avoid. Now I hope you have noticed that I say “a group of the nobility” and not “the nobility” as a whole. This is because during the Late Empire not all who belonged to the highest hierarchy had this ‘classist’ attitude towards their language. For instance, Valentinian and Valens may have been Roman emperors and therefore part of the elite, but very well-educated fellows they were not.
Regarding the people’s language (Vulgar Latin), apparently the sound of V changed to the B sound during the Early Empire era. Longus, a grammarian during Trajan’s reign says that the V in the name Valente is pronounced “cum aliqua aspiratione”. Sometimes the sound of V even disappeared from words like when the letter was in between two vowels. So, words like “divinus” may have been pronounced “dinus”, although my personal opinion, to which I came by extrapolating cases from the evolution of Romance languages make me believe that it was more like “diinus”.
Later, almost all over the Empire, the bilabial sound of V (like English B) turned more dentilabial (I don’t know if the spell of this word is correct in English) similar to the English V, which now is observed in modern Romance languages like Italian and French, but not in Hispania. Modern Spanish doesn’t make any phonetic difference between B and V.
Hope this helps and thank you for the rep.