mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Hobbies

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2016-08-21, 14:23   #56
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

22·7·317 Posts
Default

Haha, funny. But his pronunciation is totally odd. The Latin "ae" is pronounced "e" and the "ce" and "ci" groups are pronounced like English "che" in "cheque" and "chi" in "children". Also, Latins used a clearly pronounced "v" sound, like in "victory", even if they mixed "u" and "v" in writing. Therefore "salve" is pronounced "salVe" and not "salue". The pronunciation of Latin "v" is lost in modern languages (salute, salutti, etc) but see for example "silva"=forest or some other where it survived. The "faci" and "cecidi" sound ugly when pronounced like he does, "faki" and "kekidi", the right sounds are "fatchi" (like Italian "facere", Rom. "faci") and respective "tchetchiti".

Anyhow, he is funny, and his voice is really nice.
LaurV is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-08-21, 14:46   #57
only_human
 
only_human's Avatar
 
"Gang aft agley"
Sep 2002

3,581 Posts
Default

He has a Romanian wife and he said that the Romanian word for empty as in empty bottle means something quite different when used with woman:

Quote:
By an accident of romance, I have had to learn Romanian. And Romanian contains its own fun Lexical Gaps. Romanian does not have a word for “shallow.” If you ask a Romanian how to say “shallow,” they will curl their eyebrows and then finally offer,
“nu adânc” (not deep).
But most fun of all, and I was prompted to write this post because I stumbled on this adjective while studying Romanian in preparation for a New Year’s Party in which I will soon be expected to speak nothing but that language for several hours, is the adjective gol, goală, goi, goale. This adjective means both ‘naked’ and ‘empty’. That’s right, an empty bottle is o sticlă goală. A naked woman is o femeie goală.
I notice that Duolingo still hasn't released Romanian and Greek into beta test. One of the Romanian contributors said a few days ago that they had just finished the sentences but some quality check and sound needed to be added.

But every day they move the projected release date forward.

I guess it's not time to open a bottle of wine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veni,_vidi,_vici
Quote:
Veni, vidi, vici

"Veni, vidi, vici" (Classical Latin: [ˈweːniː ˈwiːdiː ˈwiːkiː]; Ecclesiastical Latin: [ˈvɛni ˈvidi ˈvitʃi]; "I came; I saw; I conquered")

Last fiddled with by only_human on 2016-08-21 at 14:56
only_human is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-08-21, 15:31   #58
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

22·7·317 Posts
Default

Haha, that is funny, and mostly true. There is an adjective for shallow (but indeed, its meaning is "not deep"). We also can say "o apă mică" (small, or little water). OTOH, we do not use "deep" for other meanings (like deep thinking) and have particular words for those.

I guess I am talking "ecclesiastical" Latin then...

But still, what they call "classical" is more like "modern". As there are no recordings of spoken language of those times, Latin "evolved" together with the other languages. An example is the word "muscas" - not long ago I had a contradiction with wiki editors of the Latin section (the discussion is still there on the Talk page) - this word is not Latin and it didn't exist in Latin. In Latin, "musca" (fly) had the plural "musci" (flies) (from which we romanians have "muscă, muște"). The word "muscas" is a britism coined by an economist who, a hundred years ago or so, wrote a book with the title "acvila non capit muscas" (correct Latin: "aquila non capit muscam", the "am" at the end is the mark of accusative case, the object of the action. See for example "philosophum non facit barba", versus "philosophus non facit barba", with two total different meaning, the first means "not the beard makes a philosopher" and the second is just the blank "a philosopher does not have a beard"). Now, if you ask any guy in the world, who heard the saying before, he will tell you that "muscas" is right. Which is not.

You won't believe that I learned that stuff from a Japanese forex trader, on a trading forum, haha. Latin was one of his hobbies (and beer, but that is a different thing). At the time I didn't believe it, and I made some research which confirmed his story. Now, after the wiki contradiction didn't turn very well for me, I tried to reconstruct the same research, but I didn't find the book, and all "classical" Latin references where I was looking, give the plural of "musca" being "muscas".

Kind of shit. The Latins didn't form plurals in "s", this is a characteristic of Germanic languages (like English).

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2016-08-21 at 15:42
LaurV is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-08-21, 16:49   #59
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

7·1,447 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
Haha, funny. But his pronunciation is totally odd. The Latin "ae" is pronounced "e" and the "ce" and "ci" groups are pronounced like English "che" in "cheque" and "chi" in "children". Also, Latins used a clearly pronounced "v" sound, like in "victory", even if they mixed "u" and "v" in writing. Therefore "salve" is pronounced "salVe" and not "salue". The pronunciation of Latin "v" is lost in modern languages (salute, salutti, etc) but see for example "silva"=forest or some other where it survived. The "faci" and "cecidi" sound ugly when pronounced like he does, "faki" and "kekidi", the right sounds are "fatchi" (like Italian "facere", Rom. "faci") and respective "tchetchiti".
You are using the "modern" pronunciation for such as "fatchi". The is the version used by the Roman Catholic church, for instance.

There is no real doubt about the original classical pronunciation. The "c" is always hard, as in "faki" not "fatchi" or "fasi". As an example of the reasoning used to support this claim compare words which are direct descendants of the Latin "Caesar". In German we have Kaiser. In several Slavic languages, the earliest attested being (AFAIK) Old Church Slavonic, it's цар which is Tsar or Czar in Roman transliteration. The title has been used by rulers of Bulgaria, Serbia and Russia. In Serbian the word is "car" where the "c" is pronounced "ts", as in modern Czech and Slovak.

Another example is the Egyptian queen "Brnikat", where the terminal -t is the feminine suffix as in modern Semitic languages, corresponding to -a in many IndoEuropean languages from Russian to Spanish. (It's believed that the final -t was either silent or heavily softened in Egyptian speech.) In Greek the name is Βερενίκη (Berenikē) and Latin Berenices. Again, a hard-c is evident.

There are many other examples for the ubiquity of the hard-c in classical Latin.

The g was also hard (as in English goat and not as in general). A classic example can be traced back to Akkadian, via Greek, in the word "angel", meaning messenger. It's angarru in Akkadian, αγγελος in Greek and angelus in Latin, that being a virtually perfect transliteration.

The v was, according to all best evidence, pronounced as the English w in water. so Julius Caesar ("Yulious Kaisar") stated "Weeny, Weedy, Weaky" after his arrival in England.

Salve was pronounced "salway" or something very close to that.

Last fiddled with by xilman on 2016-08-21 at 16:50
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-08-22, 04:01   #60
LaurV
Romulan Interpreter
 
LaurV's Avatar
 
Jun 2011
Thailand

22·7·317 Posts
Default

re: "Caesar"

Wrong example. The "ae" group's role in Latin (which is pronounced "e" as in "red" but longer, see "silvae"="forests") was exactly to avoid pronouncing "ce" as "tche". Therefore is "Caesar" (ke-sar) and not "Cesar" (tche-sar). The Latin groups "ce" and "ci" were always pronounced "tche" and "tchi" respectively. Romanian version (also a very common first name for boys) is "Cezar", pronounced with "tche". Remark that the stand alone sound "tch" did not exist in Latin, as well as in other places, like "tcha" "tcho" "thcu" none of them existed. The only "exception" is "thce" and "tchi". Romanian resolved the "ae" problem by inserting a "h" instead of "a". Therefore we have "ce, ci, ge, gi" always pronounced as in "check", "childred", "George", "region", and "che, chi, ghe, ghi" always pronounced as in "key, kid, get, give" (so, that is "in reverse" than English and French, where the "h" brings the "tch" sound).

In Romanian we have the proper name "Anghel" (hard g) derived from Greek, but the "înger" (ge as in George) derived from Latin.

The "c" and "g" were hard everywhere (pronounced "k" and "\(\Gamma\)", except when followed by "e" or "i".

Also, the "v" was "v" in all cases, except when followed by a "n" (and few other exceptions). "veni" was "Veni", not "weni" nor "uieni", see Italian "viene", "venire", whatever, "vede" was "Vede", see English "vision" and not "wision", etc. Even proper names, like "Verdi" (=green, the color). But it was "vniversitate" (university) indeed, here you are right.

It is difficult for me to understand why people go to Greek, Egyptian, and other older languages which actually influenced the Latin (and not the other way around!) when you have people who derived their talk directly from Latin, and are still speaking it (including the Church, with all my disrespect for it). But well, the history is always written by the winners, you know... If French would be a bit stronger at their time, we would not say "computer" now, but "ordinateur"...

Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2016-08-22 at 04:17
LaurV is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-08-22, 04:24   #61
only_human
 
only_human's Avatar
 
"Gang aft agley"
Sep 2002

3,581 Posts
Default

What can we learn from Roman graffiti?
Quote:
People who struggled with their gerundives and subjunctives at school will be pleased to find that the Romans also found their language difficult. In Balbus’s house in Pompeii, there’s the simple line, “Militat omnes”, a borrowing from Ovid’s line, “Militat omnis amans” — “Every lover fights.” The graffiti writer should have said “omnis” in the singular, or “omnia”, the neuter plural which, perplexingly, takes a singular verb – not “omnes”.

The walls of Rome and Pompeii are littered with such mistakes, just like Graham Chapman’s graffito in Life of Brian — “Romanes eunt domus” – which is corrected by John Cleese’s pedantic centurion: “Romans, go home!” is an order, so you must use the …?” “Imperative?” “Which is?” “Um, oh, oh, 'I’? 'I’!” “How many Romans?” “Plural, plural! 'ITE’!”
http://youtu.be/2lru4dJ4J6g

Here is what appears to be a very detailed list of graffiti from Pompeii but perplexingly only includes the English translations
Graffiti from Pompeii (NSFW - duh!)

"Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiss nichts von seiner eigenen."—Goethe ("He who doesn't know foreign languages knows nothing about his own".)

Last fiddled with by only_human on 2016-08-22 at 05:16 Reason: NSFW
only_human is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-08-22, 07:07   #62
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

7×1,447 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
re: "Caesar"

Wrong example. The "ae" group's role in Latin (which is pronounced "e" as in "red" but longer, see "silvae"="forests") was exactly to avoid pronouncing "ce" as "tche". Therefore is "Caesar" (ke-sar) and not "Cesar" (tche-sar). The Latin groups "ce" and "ci" were always pronounced "tche" and "tchi" respectively. Romanian version (also a very common first name for boys) is "Cezar", pronounced with "tche". Remark that the stand alone sound "tch" did not exist in Latin, as well as in other places, like "tcha" "tcho" "thcu" none of them existed. The only "exception" is "thce" and "tchi". Romanian resolved the "ae" problem by inserting a "h" instead of "a". Therefore we have "ce, ci, ge, gi" always pronounced as in "check", "childred", "George", "region", and "che, chi, ghe, ghi" always pronounced as in "key, kid, get, give" (so, that is "in reverse" than English and French, where the "h" brings the "tch" sound).

In Romanian we have the proper name "Anghel" (hard g) derived from Greek, but the "înger" (ge as in George) derived from Latin.

The "c" and "g" were hard everywhere (pronounced "k" and "\(\Gamma\)", except when followed by "e" or "i".

Also, the "v" was "v" in all cases, except when followed by a "n" (and few other exceptions). "veni" was "Veni", not "weni" nor "uieni", see Italian "viene", "venire", whatever, "vede" was "Vede", see English "vision" and not "wision", etc. Even proper names, like "Verdi" (=green, the color). But it was "vniversitate" (university) indeed, here you are right.

It is difficult for me to understand why people go to Greek, Egyptian, and other older languages which actually influenced the Latin (and not the other way around!) when you have people who derived their talk directly from Latin, and are still speaking it (including the Church, with all my disrespect for it). But well, the history is always written by the winners, you know... If French would be a bit stronger at their time, we would not say "computer" now, but "ordinateur"...
The point you are missing is that the pronunciation of Latin changed part way through the first millennium. You're talking about the later language and I about the language as spoken during the height of the Roman empire, the language of Cicero and Nero.

The reason we compare with other languages such as Ancient Greek, Middle Egyptian and Akkaddian is that they are co-eval with classical Latin and so shared words (and proper names are particularly useful) give an insight as to how those languages were pronounced. Further insight can be gleaned from how those ancient languages subsequently developed into Coptic, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, etc., again by comparing and contrasting between languages.

There really is well over a century of linguistic research into such matters with results that are now well established. A real area of disagreement is over how vowels were pronounced in languages where the script does not record them, such as Middle Egyptian and sundry Semitic languages such as ancient Hebrew or Arabic. This consideration does not apply to Latin, Greek and Akkaddian which wrote the vowels.

You might find http://www.wheelockslatin.com/index.html informative.

http://www.wheelockslatin.com/chapte...roduction.html contains this text

The text and audio provided on this site are based upon the section in the "Introduction" to WHEELOCK'S LATIN titled "The Alphabet and Pronunciation," which should be studied thoroughly before proceeding; a few additional details, including the pronunciation of the letters of the Roman alphabet, are drawn chiefly from W.S. Allen's VOX LATINA (2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 1978), which should be consulted for a close examination of the whole issue of the pronunciation of classical Latin.

and links to substantial detail.

I've been studying this sort of thing for over 20 years now. Not that that makes me an expert by any means but I feel I have some grasp of what the experts are trying to say.
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-08-22, 07:57   #63
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

236218 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xilman View Post
The point you are missing is that the pronunciation of Latin changed part way through the first millennium. You're talking about the later language and I about the language as spoken during the height of the Roman empire, the language of Cicero and Nero.
All languages change over the centuries, of course, not just Latin. Liturgical languages such as Ecclesiastical Latin and Coptic tend to be rather more stable than most precisely because they are primarily used to preserve ancient scriptures and rituals rather than to adapt to changing circumstances. If you want to see how ordinary languages mutate, compare Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Romanian all of which descended from Latin. Given the variety shown by these modern languages, do you not think it likely that the pronunciation of Latin also changed in the last 2000 years, despite the strong conservative pressures put on it by the RC church?

English pronunciation is a fine example of linguistic change. The vowels are especially fluid ---- compare American, Received Pronunciation, Glaswegian, Australian and Jamaican for a wide variety of today's speech. Consonants also change but more slowly. In some versions of English, Liverpudlian being an example, some -t sounds become a glottal stop: "butter" is more "bu'er". Over a longer time span, English spelling preservers sounds that have now disappeared. The kn diagraph used to be pronounced as in modern German. The gh used to be an aspirated g, as g- is in modern Dutch. So the much mocked "kniggits" in Monty Python and the Holy Grail is actually much closer to that used by the knights themselves than how we would say the word today.

Perhaps the best example I can give for those who wish to see how a language can change is to suggest that you read two Wikip{e,æ}dia's: Modern English and Old English. That happened in a thousand years. Latin has changed in twice that span --- it became Spanish and Romanian for example --- and only the immense conservatism of the RC church has preserved a close resemblance to the ancient language.

FWIW, I think https://ang.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hēafodtramet is a wonderful resource. I dip into it quite often.
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-08-22, 09:27   #64
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3×2,399 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaurV View Post
re: "Caesar"

Wrong example. The "ae" group's role in Latin (which is pronounced "e" as in "red" but longer, see "silvae"="forests") was exactly to avoid pronouncing "ce" as "tche". Therefore is "Caesar" (ke-sar) and not "Cesar" (tche-sar). The Latin groups "ce" and "ci" were always pronounced "tche" and "tchi" respectively. Romanian version (also a very common first name for boys) is "Cezar", pronounced with "tche". Remark that the stand alone sound "tch" did not exist in Latin, as well as in other places, like "tcha" "tcho" "thcu" none of them existed. The only "exception" is "thce" and "tchi". Romanian resolved the "ae" problem by inserting a "h" instead of "a". Therefore we have "ce, ci, ge, gi" always pronounced as in "check", "childred", "George", "region", and "che, chi, ghe, ghi" always pronounced as in "key, kid, get, give" (so, that is "in reverse" than English and French, where the "h" brings the "tch" sound).

In Romanian we have the proper name "Anghel" (hard g) derived from Greek, but the "înger" (ge as in George) derived from Latin.

The "c" and "g" were hard everywhere (pronounced "k" and "\(\Gamma\)", except when followed by "e" or "i".

Also, the "v" was "v" in all cases, except when followed by a "n" (and few other exceptions). "veni" was "Veni", not "weni" nor "uieni", see Italian "viene", "venire", whatever, "vede" was "Vede", see English "vision" and not "wision", etc. Even proper names, like "Verdi" (=green, the color). But it was "vniversitate" (university) indeed, here you are right.

It is difficult for me to understand why people go to Greek, Egyptian, and other older languages which actually influenced the Latin (and not the other way around!) when you have people who derived their talk directly from Latin, and are still speaking it (including the Church, with all my disrespect for it). But well, the history is always written by the winners, you know... If French would be a bit stronger at their time, we would not say "computer" now, but "ordinateur"...
To tl;dr xilman, Ancient Greek and Ancient Egyptian coexisted with Ancient Latin (commonly known as Classical Latin), and the way it was pronounced 2000 years ago is much more like how the guy in the video did it than any of its modern descendants. I once knew a teeny bit of Italian, and you are describing modern Italian (and presumably modern Roumanian too? but I don't know it), and modern Italian is pronounced quite differently from classical Latin.

@xilman do you actually know/read Old English? (Otherwise known as Ænglisc or some variant of Anglo-Frisian-Saxon)

Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 2016-08-22 at 09:29
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-08-22, 09:38   #65
xilman
Bamboozled!
 
xilman's Avatar
 
"𒉺𒌌𒇷𒆷𒀭"
May 2003
Down not across

236218 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubslow View Post
@xilman do you actually know/read Old English? (Otherwise known as Ænglisc or some variant of Anglo-Frisian-Saxon)
I read Old English about as well as I read Norwegian, though I've had no formal education in either. They are both Germanic languages, one West Germanic and the other North Germanic. If you have familiarity with a couple of Germanic languages, reading others becomes possible but arduous and with many opportunities for error.

Likewise, I can read Romanian about as easily as I can Italian. I've studied French in depth, been a tourist in Spanish speaking areas many times and English has heavy Romance influences.


The language which interests me greatly but for which I know no cognates is Middle Egyptian. Much harder to make progress without the availability of illustrative counterparts.

Last fiddled with by xilman on 2016-08-22 at 09:44
xilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2016-08-22, 10:09   #66
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3·2,399 Posts
Default

I can read Cyrillic easier than I can properly-written old English, though surely 10 minutes of effort would level the playing field (and I'm certain I could make more sense of the old English than the Russian, though my own non native linguistics experience is primarily of the Romance variety rather than Germanic , so still probably quite difficult).
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


All times are UTC. The time now is 11:28.

Thu Oct 29 11:28:01 UTC 2020 up 49 days, 8:38, 1 user, load averages: 2.32, 2.35, 2.09

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.