 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation
> However, ae and oe generally became monophthongs, /ɛː/ and /eː/
> respectively, already at the start of the imperial period.
I'm a bit confused by this. From what I've read the ɛ character is
pronounced as the e 'bed' in American English, and the e character is
pronounced as the ay in 'play' in Canadian English or as e in 'bebe' in
Spanish. It would seem as though those two pronunciations are reversed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford escribió:
> According to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation
>
>> However, ae and oe generally became monophthongs, /ɛː/ and /eː/
>> respectively, already at the start of the imperial period.
>
> I'm a bit confused by this. From what I've read the ɛ character is
> pronounced as the e 'bed' in American English, and the e character is
> pronounced as the ay in 'play' in Canadian English or as e in 'bebe' in
> Spanish. It would seem as though those two pronunciations are reversed.
o_o
I thought e was the same as ɛ, but more commonly used due to being
possible in ASCII.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:34:50 +0100, Mike Raiford
<mra### [at] hotmail com> did spake, saying:
> According to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation
>
>> However, ae and oe generally became monophthongs, /ɛː/ and /eː/
>> respectively, already at the start of the imperial period.
>
> I'm a bit confused by this. From what I've read the ɛ character is
> pronounced as the e 'bed' in American English, and the e character is
> pronounced as the ay in 'play' in Canadian English or as e in 'bebe' in
> Spanish. It would seem as though those two pronunciations are reversed.
So they went from /ai/ (w*i*se) to /ɛɪ/ (*ei*nd) and /oi/ (*oi*l) to /eɪ/
(pl*ay*). Certainly the latter is a bit of a shift, but English has
similiar.
It's interesting to think that pronunciations are best found in the
phonetic renderings of foreigners or people who just couldn't spell... so
everyone be kind to Andy he's helping future research :-P
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> According to
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_spelling_and_pronunciation
>
>> However, ae and oe generally became monophthongs, /ɛː/ and /eː/
>> respectively, already at the start of the imperial period.
>
> I'm a bit confused by this. From what I've read the ɛ character is
> pronounced as the e 'bed' in American English, and the e character is
> pronounced as the ay in 'play' in Canadian English or as e in 'bebe' in
> Spanish. It would seem as though those two pronunciations are reversed.
Wait... people *know* how to pronounce Latin now? I thought it was a
dead language, and hence we'll never "really" know what the "correct"
way is.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Wait... people *know* how to pronounce Latin now? I thought it was a
> dead language, and hence we'll never "really" know what the "correct"
> way is.
That's not the definition of dead language. A dead language is one
which has had native speakers in the past but doesn't have anymore
anywhere. Just because it's not used as native language anymore doesn't
mean the knowledge of how it's pronounced has been lost. There have always
been people who know Latin.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Wait... people *know* how to pronounce Latin now? I thought it was a
>> dead language, and hence we'll never "really" know what the "correct"
>> way is.
>
> That's not the definition of dead language. A dead language is one
> which has had native speakers in the past but doesn't have anymore
> anywhere. Just because it's not used as native language anymore doesn't
> mean the knowledge of how it's pronounced has been lost. There have always
> been people who know Latin.
>
Further Latin is used in taxonomy and pretty heavily in the medical field.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's not the definition of dead language. A dead language is one
> which has had native speakers in the past but doesn't have anymore
> anywhere.
FWIW, my college linguistics class defined "dead language" as "one
nobody knows how to speak any more". The prof specifically excluded
Latin from being a dead language. So I think even the pros don't agree
on what they're talking about there.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> Wait... people *know* how to pronounce Latin now? I thought it was a
>>> dead language, and hence we'll never "really" know what the "correct"
>>> way is.
>>
<snip>
>
> Further Latin is used in taxonomy and pretty heavily in the medical field.
IIRC there's a bunch of guys living in the centre of Rome who speak it
pretty well ;-)
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:35:24 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>> Wait... people *know* how to pronounce Latin now? I thought it was a
>>>> dead language, and hence we'll never "really" know what the "correct"
>>>> way is.
>>>
> <snip>
>>
>> Further Latin is used in taxonomy and pretty heavily in the medical
>> field.
>
> IIRC there's a bunch of guys living in the centre of Rome who speak it
> pretty well ;-)
Yes, but I don't know that any of them are *natively* speaking it. Pope
Benedict certainly doesn't speak it as his native tongue - that would be
Austrian (wouldn't it?)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:35:24 +0100, Doctor John
<doc### [at] gmailcom> did spake, saying:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>> Wait... people *know* how to pronounce Latin now? I thought it was a
>>>> dead language, and hence we'll never "really" know what the "correct"
>>>> way is.
>>>
> <snip>
>>
>> Further Latin is used in taxonomy and pretty heavily in the medical
>> field.
>
> IIRC there's a bunch of guys living in the centre of Rome who speak it
> pretty well ;-)
To be precise they're speaking Ecclesiastical Latin not Classical Latin,
as I said we know (guess) on the pronunciation of Classical Latin from
foreign renderings. If English became extinct but German was still spoken
then we could guess how the word category was pronounced from the German
kategorie. Note that in this example someone trying to speak 'extinct'
English from this would be likely to pronounce the e and full 'gorie'
rather then vowel switch the e to a and slur to -gry. IOW you could
probably make yourself understood, but you'd be considered to have an odd
accent or most likely a non-native speaker.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:45:11 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> Note that in this example someone trying to speak 'extinct'
>English from this would be likely to pronounce the e and full 'gorie'
>rather then vowel switch the e to a and slur to -gry.
Oh!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:52:48 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:45:11 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> Note that in this example someone trying to speak 'extinct'
>> English from this would be likely to pronounce the e and full 'gorie'
>> rather then vowel switch the e to a and slur to -gry.
>
> Oh!
Another way to look at it is cyan as ki-an, because from known examples
"c" is always hard in English when it's the first letter. So we'd could
also get ky-me for chime for similar reasons. Of course you could spot
that cy and ch correspond to different sounds in foreign
derivative/original words, but that assumes you're working with a full
representative one-to-one vocabulary. IOW it's educated guesswork.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:18:24 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>Another way to look at it is cyan as ki-an, because from known examples
>"c" is always hard in English when it's the first letter. So we'd could
>also get ky-me for chime for similar reasons. Of course you could spot
>that cy and ch correspond to different sounds in foreign
>derivative/original words, but that assumes you're working with a full
>representative one-to-one vocabulary. IOW it's educated guesswork.
Hmm!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:44:05 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:18:24 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Another way to look at it is cyan as ki-an, because from known examples
>> "c" is always hard in English when it's the first letter. So we'd could
>> also get ky-me for chime for similar reasons. Of course you could spot
>> that cy and ch correspond to different sounds in foreign
>> derivative/original words, but that assumes you're working with a full
>> representative one-to-one vocabulary. IOW it's educated guesswork.
>
> Hmm!
Taciturn - should that be a hard c or a soft c? :-P
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:56:45 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>Taciturn - should that be a hard c or a soft c? :-P
Si, hard man! But dourly :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:41:51 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:56:45 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> Taciturn - should that be a hard c or a soft c? :-P
>
> Si, hard man! But dourly :)
Oh! Hmm!
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:33:09 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>And lo on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:41:51 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
>did spake, saying:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:56:45 +0100, "Phil Cook"
>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>
>>> Taciturn - should that be a hard c or a soft c? :-P
>>
>> Si, hard man! But dourly :)
>
>Oh! Hmm!
>
Hmm...
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:45:38 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
did spake, saying:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:33:09 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> And lo on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:41:51 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
>> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:56:45 +0100, "Phil Cook"
>>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Taciturn - should that be a hard c or a soft c? :-P
>>>
>>> Si, hard man! But dourly :)
>>
>> Oh! Hmm!
>
> Hmm...
Oh...
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:17:38 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>And lo on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:45:38 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
>did spake, saying:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:33:09 +0100, "Phil Cook"
>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>
>>> And lo on Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:41:51 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>
>>> did spake, saying:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:56:45 +0100, "Phil Cook"
>>>> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Taciturn - should that be a hard c or a soft c? :-P
>>>>
>>>> Si, hard man! But dourly :)
>>>
>>> Oh! Hmm!
>>
>> Hmm...
>
>Oh...
>
Yes!
PS Goodbye Humph.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
