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

[Diocle]

No, actually what I'm saying is that you build your whole argument on a text of Zosimus, and the text of Zosimus was transcribed in a Codex (the source code) called Codex Vaticanus Graecus.

Are you following me? OK.

Then .... we have to observe that this 'Vaticanus Graecus' was written in different phases between X, XI and XII century. So we can state that your observations about the Latin spelling of the Latin name Aetius, these ones:

... Zosimus mentions Aëtius in Bk. 5.36, where his name is spelt Ἀέτιον.

they are based on a Byzantine Medieval copy, created between five and eight centuries after the age in which the Roman character Aetius lived.

Till now I suppose that you may agree with me.

Now we should consider the language used by Zosimus, it was Greek, but before reaching the copysts, who created the 'Vaticanus Graecus', it was written in a language created in the VIII century, that is three centuries after Flavius Aetius and Zosimus lived and if you have studied the matter or have some interest in the matter, you certainly know that the issues existing between the Greek language and the 'graphic morphology' of the Greek languge created in the VIII century, are many, very interesting and of various nature.
In my opinion, it's not a matter of falsifying or misinterpreting the originals, but it's a matter concerning our critical approach to the ancient sources, we should ask to the historical sources only what they can give us, and nothing else, and let me say that asking to Zosimus the Latin sound of the name Aetius is one of the questions we cannot seriously pose to the poor Vaticanus Graecus!

- About the accent and the spirits ... well, they play an important role in this (sorry, let me use this horrid expression) 'graphic rendering' of the Greek language created by the Byzantines, so I erroneously presumed that you was referring to the quality of the accents for your thesis, but you was far away from there, so ... sorry, I presumed too much! Your argument wasn't so subtle! Sorry again.

- Anyway the matter doesn't change:
You are trying to explain us, the correct sound of the Latin name 'Aetius', basing your arguments on a text composed between the X and the XII centuries, that is, five or eight centuries after its first composition, a text based on a now lost source written in language created in the VIII century AD, that is, three centuries after Zosimus had written it, in the V century (using a different written language), so I think that this way to prove your assumption about the Latin sound of Aetius, is absolutely weak.

Your argument is like trying to explain the use of the Franziska throwing axe, found in many Anglo-Saxon sites, using the rules of the Cricket! It may be suggestive but it's also very ... weak!


- About my 'preconceived opinions' , what can I say? ... do you know them? I don't know them. I've to admit that I already have many doubts about my 'normal opinions', imagine the situation about the 'preconceived' ones!

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

That is the correct pronunciation in english, "Aye-shus" and when pronouncing it in latin it is "aye-tee-oos."

The dipthong we know is pronounced as "Aye" or "Eye" would be in english.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion as it lacks any kind of evidence. I understand that assigning the English ‘eye’ value to the ’AE’ Latin form works well enough as it’s a very close approximation to the Latin sound. However, it only works from the perspective of a native English speaker for whom ‘A’ may sound like ‘ah’ and ‘E’ ‘ee’. A problem arises though when you discover that Latin languages don’t pronounce the letter ‘E’ in the same way. There might be certain nuances on how these languages pronounce such a letter, but overall the sound they assign to that grapheme is similar to‘eh’, like in the English word ‘set’ (just an approximation). Therefore, no Latin language pronounces ‘AE’ ‘eye’, but ‘ah-eh’; and since the elision of ‘A’ gave place to those languages articulating just the last letter, which is pronounced ‘eh’, it’s safe to assume that pronouncing ‘AE’ as the English word ‘eye’ is just an approximation (and a very good one for that matter), but not necessarily the ‘correct’ way as you stated.

[Renatus]

Diocle,

I bow to your superior knowledge of the development of the Ancient Greek language as we have it today. However, I am not sure that it helps very much. Virtually every text that we have, Latin or Greek, has reached us through the filter of mediaeval copyists. Some are better than others and the task of the philologist is to compare them and to arrive at the best reading that he or she can. Where we have one text from which all others derive, as you seem to say is the case with Zosimus, we have to take that text as it stands and trust it to reflect reasonably accurately the form of the original. We cannot reject it simply because it does not tell us what we want to hear. What I have pointed out is that Zosimus' text, as we have it, has within it two names of Roman generals whose names in Latin contain the element 'AE'. In one case, this is rendered 'alpha-epsilon', in the other 'alpha-iota'. In the absence of other evidence, we have to assume that this reflects the original. Zosimus wrote his history some 50 or 60 years after Aetius and we have to assume, because we have no alternative, that he knew what he was writing about and that he knew that there was a difference between the way in which the 'AE' element was pronounced in 'Aetius' and 'Caesar'. You may not like it but I do not see how you can get around it without arrogating to yourself knowledge superior to that of the original author.


Pseudo Romanus,

You raise an interesting issue: how the pronunciation of Latin is taught in different countries. We are pontificating about how Aetius should be pronounced but who is right or are we all right within the context of our own nationalities? In England, the first noun that we learn (or did when I was at school) is the first declension mensa, the nominative plural of which (amongst other cases) is mensae. This we are taught should be pronounced 'mens-eye'. How are students in other countries taught to pronounce it?

[Knonfoda]

In Portuguese it would go "Mensa" with the e silent.

It also just occurred to me with my previous example of the British pronunciation of the word A.I that this may only refer to Geordi speakers, of which I am one, who tend to pronounce words quite harshly and abruptly and with little to no intonation.

Another word which I think may more accurately reflect what I'm trying (and failing at) explaining is how we pronounced the e in The - that comes closer to what I was trying to suggest in regards to how the A in A.I sounds like certain E's in Roman languages like Portuguese.

So if that's not too confusing, it could go Ah-e (pronounced like the E in The) ti-os.

[Diocle]

I bow to your superior knowledge of the development of the Ancient Greek language as we have it today....

Your use of the verbs: Presume, assume and similar is disturbing!

I'm not rejecting the value of Zosimus, of course! I'm only suggesting you that:

it's the use of Zosimus as linguistic source about the Pronunciation of the Latin Language, that is absolutely weak.

Beware, I repeat: it's the use that is weak and not the old Zosimus himself, poor creature! (he was also deliciously Pagan!).

My knowledge of the Greek language is based only on five, long, hard and torturing years of pains and intellectual exaltation under teachers more like ferocious Pitbull than human beings, and nothing else (maybe some good reading, here and there, some months in Greece, now and then, three magnificent Old Vocabularies ... and not much more), so there is no need to bow ... nor to be sarcastic, my dear lawyer.

[Knonfoda]

You seem to have a better grasp of English than I do Diocle, as those examples are miles better than anything I had in mind or could even think of.

As for Zosimus, I haven't been following this thread, I've just picked up the last page. I'm not using him as my source, merely how it sounds in a contemporary Romance language, and if that happens to coincide with what Zosimus says, well then... maybe he's right?

If not, I don't really care either way. Each language has its own distinctive quirks about how to butcher other languages.

[Diocle]

Now I've quoted Renatus in my previous post, sorry Knon, I was answering to post #143 (holy crap! 143 posts for the Old King in AD 2013!!!!! This is cool! )

[Renatus]

it's the use of Zosimus as linguistic source about the Pronunciation of the Latin Language, that is absolutely weak.

John Malalas uses the same spelling Ἀέτιος but I suppose that you would raise the same objection to him.

... nor to be sarcastic, my dear lawyer.

No sarcasm, I assure you.

[Diocle]

John Malalas uses the same spelling Ἀέτιος but I suppose that you would raise the same objection to him.

Yes, of course.
I find pretty weired using a Greek historian to find a Latin suond, the main way should be using Linguistics and Philology, but probably I'm too old school.

Anyway, returning to the weakness of your reasoning:

Where we have one text from which all others derive ... we have to take that text as it stands and trust it to reflect reasonably accurately the form of the original.

Why?
Sorry, but this is absolutely false. Look at the 'Homeric question', actually it is true the opposite, when we have a text .... then the problems come!

and more:

In the absence of other evidence, we have to assume that this reflects the original.

Again: Why?
The absence of other evidences doesn't limit our power of rational critic of the source, if not the doors would be disclosed to an infinite amount of false interpretations. Look at the 'Historia Augusta' and its complex history, we have a text that sadly is almost unic on the matter of the III century Emperors but we do know that it's in great part an absolutely unreliable source so even the informations coming only from there, even if interesting cannot be assumed as the truth, instead the general unreliability of the source projects a deep shadow on the whole text, even in the parts that might be assumed as reliable informations.

Then, stubbornly you insist on your assuptions and you conclude:

we have to assume, because we have no alternative, that he knew what he was writing about and that he knew that there was a difference between the way in which the 'AE' element was pronounced in 'Aetius' and 'Caesar'.

Again and for the last time: Why?

I'll try to answer, to show you that actually we have a lot (infinite) alternatives! but with the premise that I'm not an expert, I'm not an Historian, Im not a Specialist in Linguistics nor a Philologist, and no, I'm not arrogating any intellectual right over anything and anyone!
But nevertheless I can use my brain and my small knowledge and my Italian best weapon: My fantasy!

So, follow me and discover with me some of the reasons why Zosimus (& Malalas) can be considered a weak argument to prove the real sound of the Latin diphthong AE in the Latin name Aetius:

1 - The diphthong 'AE' in the name 'Aetius' is the first syllab of the word Aetius, while the diphthong AE in Caesar follows the first consonant C. Can we presume a different functioning inside the Greek Language of these two positions? (Actually my point about spirits and accents was introducing the argument ...)

2 - As you said, the Latin diphtong AE isn't a Greek diphtong, so we might presume that a Greek copyst not knowing if the Latin sound was a diphtong or not, he chose to respected the original Latin writing.

3 - The word Caesar was a name for Caius Julius & Sons, but at the time of Zosimus (& Malalas) it had became an absolutely common political substantive, used everyday to indicate the Emperor. Look at the Russian Kaizar and the German Kaiser and so on .... So, it can be absolutely logic and highly probable, for our author/s and copyst/s using the grecized form of Caisar for Caesar, while they respected the Latin text for the name Aetius.

Example to be clear: Aubry De Vere was a damn norman robber and brigand in the comitatus of William when he conquered Britain; well, his name indicating his family came from the small French town of Ver in France, remained unchanged till today, while the French word Duc (the Latin Dux, ducis) was Anglicized in 'Duke' because it was a political word, of common use. (and because if you Anglicized too quickly a memebr of the De Vere family probably your health would has run serious risks!) the same can be said for words as Royal (French: royale) or Viscount (French: Vicomte) and so on ...

4 - The copyst/s or the author/s may have chosen to let the diphthong AE unchanged in Aetius to underline the modernity of the character Aetius, compared to the ancient name of the Roman Emperors.

5 - The Greek author/s or copyist/s may have chosen to translate the Latin diphthong AE in the name of Caesar, to underline the Greek Legitimacy for the Eastern Emperors to be called Romans, in the end, wasn't exactly this one the phenomenon occurrying for the Roman military terms?
While for the the name Aetius the matter was meaningless, so his precious Latin diphthong ramained unchanged.

6 - The diphthong AE in Aetius may been have let in its original Latin form, to subtly indicate the political belonging of the name Aetius to the Western Part of the Empire, we cannot forget that those were the years in which the West was falling and Byzantium needed to take its place and at the same time distinguish its destinies from those of the Western Part.

7 - Errors. Simply banal error in the hadwriting process: Can you imagine how many hnds have worked on the work of Zosimus (& Malalas) until the last exemplarof the code was written in the XII century?

8 - The author/s and the copyst/s were culturally Latins and even if using the Greek perceived the name of Aetius as part of their modern political identity or story.

I might go on for few pages but it's better to stop my fantasy now, I'm already annoying even myself!

Anyway you can also mix one or two or more of these hypotesis to create new ones ... I find that we sholud be very cautious in the use of espressions as 'We have to' or 'we have to assume' or 'we have to take', no, my dear Renatus, we haven't to assume anything, we have only to be very cautious using History and Lingusistics.



sorry for the quality of my English and for the typos, I've no time today so ...

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Can we advance the hypothesis that probabbly it's the quality of the consonant 'LIQUIDA' following the diphthong, that might play a role in this case?
.... In fact actually AERE and all the composed words using AER-, are the only cases in wich the Latin diphtong AE has a double sound in the spoken Latin used in Italy, and they are really a small group of words, all under the strict dictatorship of the consonant 'R'.

Don't you think we should limit our research only to the examples in which the sound of the ancient Latin diphthong 'AE' is followed by the 'DENTALE' consonant 'T', in all the modern kinds of spoken Latin? ...

Sorry for taking this long to give you a reply, but sometimes real life stuff gets in the middle.

Well, to the point: to be honest, I fail to see why we should not consider the examples I provided. What does the classification of consonants have to do with the way ‘AE’ was pronounced? My point was to give evidence of the existence of another way to utter such a combination in addition to the one you suggest and that I (to certain point, as I already said) agree with; and not to explain why it happened. I believe I have proved that, regardless of what consonant accompanies the ‘AE’ form, there were two different ways to pronounce it.
But, anyway, I’ll humor you my friend. You asked for AE followed by a dental ‘T’ in modern Latin languages… well, Knonfoda gave us that exactly in post 139 when he says:

In Portuguese, it is pronounced Ah-eh-ti-os, but it’s almost impossible to explain phonetically in English unless you know Portuguese.

Even in Spanish and Catalan, you can see the same. Granted, ‘T’ has been replaced by a soft ‘C’, (because of a palatalization process that in Italian gave place to the use of ‘Z’ as you know) but the point remains: ‘AE’ could also be pronounced ‘ah-eh’.

Now, what about ‘AE’ combined with a different kind of dental consonant? I suggest the word ‘aedo’ both in Italian and Spanish. We still see an ‘ah-eh’ sound.
Finally, what do we do with the Appendix Probi and its ‘corrections’? I found this vid. Skip to 5.09 and you’ll see my point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhTEwl1yaNA

Look, I’m not trying to say that pronouncing ‘AE’ as ‘eh’ is wrong. The elision process, common to all Latin languages, is real and we can see it happening every time we Neo-Latin speakers open our mouth to speak; so it is not wrong at all as our languages come directly from that of ancient Rome . I’m just saying that there was more than one and only standard mode. Something similar to what happens nowadays with widespread languages like English and Spanish. Neither of them has just one version of their languages.

As always, it's a pleasure to exchange thoughts with you, my friend.

[Diocle]

Mio caro! ..... L'Appendix Probi! L'hai trovata su youtube!

PSEUDO ROMANUS is a GENIUS of INESTIMABLE QUALITY

So, sorry guys but I've to offer you the two parts of the APPENDIX PROBI, you know the matter it's the way in which some common roman word as to be spelled, this is higly interesting because give us a sculpted image of the condition and of the transformations of the spoken language in the Late Antiquity:

So, by Appointment of the Divus Pseudo Romanus:

The APPENDIX PROBI(part 1, pars prima)



The APPENDIX PROBI (Part 2, pars secunda)



Thanks Pseudo! Really a good find!

[Renatus]

Diocle,

Our discussion of the pronunciation of the AE diphthong is pointless. It centres upon your insistance that Aetius is a Latin name to which the diphthong applies. It is not; it is Greek and you have acknowledged that there is no such diphthong in Greek. I have identified six other instances of the name. One is 2nd century BC Greek; the others are either Byzantine or from the Eastern Roman Empire. None are from the West. The Aetius whom we have been discussing was born in the East, in Moesia. It is thus overwhelmingly probable that his name was pronounced in the Greek manner. I don't suppose that this will convince you and, if you can cite Western Roman example, I will naturally look at the matter again but, until then, I suggest that we devote our time to more profitable pastimes.

I will add, as a footnote, that Malalas, in addition to spelling 'Caesar' as Κάισαρος (like Zosimus), also spells Hadrian's nomen, Aelius, as Ἤλιος. This adds another possibility for the pronunciation of the AE diphthong in Late Antiquity.

[Diocle]

Our discussion of the pronunciation of the AE diphthong is pointless....

You are right, but in my opinion you're also too severe with our small discussion, yes because talking about the Latin Language is always a pleasure and the arguments of this small discussion actually are part of the history of the Late Antiquity so, in my opinion this discussion is not only intersteing but also important here in these Forums.

You have your argument, I disagree with it, but the main point here is talking about the name of a man lived in the V century, who probably was speaking a magnificent ancient language called Latin and who was one of the main characters of the last part of the Histroy of the Pars Occidentis.
So, sorry, if I annoyed you with my firm convinctions but please remember that for me, each one of your post is always an interesting reading and a true intellectual pleasure, indeed, my hope was that this thread could become a meeting place in which, those who love the Latin Language and the Ancient Greek, they might discuss and talk about their interests, maybe with different points of view of course, but isn't this a 'sine qua non' condition for any free and honest cultural activity?

So when you have something to tell us about the Old king and his Hellenic counterpart, please don't forget this old thread, your intervents are always precious gifts for this Forum.

Thanks Renatus, really thanks, also for the information about the nice 'Elios' it's exactly the 'Eta' the Italian sound for the Latin diphthong AE (at least until Pseudo Romanus comes here and tell me I'm wrong! Now probably, if I have understood the subject, he knows the Italian sounds better than me! ). Thanks again, for the intersting information, even if I continue to find extremely hard proving the Latin pronounciation using the Greek, but please, be patient with me and try to understand: probably I'm too old for these new things!

Please dear lawyer, don't forget this place ....

[Renatus]

No hard feelings. I just didn't think that we were getting anywhere. No doubt there will be plenty of other topics that we can discuss. Thanks for the rep, by the way; it's very kind of you.

[Diocle]

Sorry, not to disagree with you again, Renatus, but I would call it 'well deserved rep'.

In fact actually I didn't know the details of the Greek text of Malalas and they are really interesting. I've read some translations but they were only fragments reported in Italian History books.

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

at least until Pseudo Romanus comes here and tell me I'm wrong!

Of course not, my friend! I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough. Allow me to quote myself:

Look, I’m not trying to say that pronouncing ‘AE’ as ‘eh’ is wrong. The elision process, common to all Latin languages, is real and we can see it happening every time we Neo-Latin speakers open our mouth to speak; so it is not wrong at all as our languages come directly from that of ancient Rome . I’m just saying that there was more than one and only standard mode. Something similar to what happens nowadays with widespread languages like English and Spanish. Neither of them has just one version of their languages.

Now probably, if I have understood the subject, he knows the Italian sounds better than me! ).

If only … I wish that were true .

[Diocle]

PSEUDO ... ti voglio bene!

[Diocle]

Now why not using some numismatics to listen the single sound of the ancient diphthong 'AE'?

Few examples:

-Theodosius' golden coin, text: RESTITUTOR REIPUBLICE, the text should be written RESTITUTOR REIPUBLICAE, but in this case it's used the single vowel 'E' instead of the diphthong 'AE'



Another case, Helena the mom of Constantinus, SECVRITAS REI PVBLICE instead of SECURITAS REIPUBLICAE (from the mint of Augusta Treverorum)



Julianus (how could we forget about him?) in these coins he is called SPES REIPUBLICE instead of SPES REIPUBLICAE:



Also Constantius II was SPES REIPUBLICE instead of SPES REIPUBLICAE, of course:




Well, now let me say that, in its icastic simplicity, the numismatics can be considered a strong proof supporting the Italian way to pronounce the Latin Diphthong 'AE' as 'E', in fact actually the Latin diphthong 'AE' was pronounced as the simple single sound of the Italian vowel 'E' (give it all the sounds you like, it'll remain a single sound!), we should consider that the previous examples are not Greek ambigous references but very common Roman Coins, a very solid proof I suppose ....

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Thinking of coins there supposedly is one of Aetius but I can't find images of it.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

'Solid' proof - I like it, you cunning man . . .