+WHY WE USE IT.+
In general, the greater part of our knowledge of the pronunciation of
Latin comes from the Latin grammarians, whose authority varies greatly
in value; or through incidental statements and expressions of the
classic writers themselves; or from monumental inscriptions. Of these
three, the first is inferior to the other two in quality, but they in
turn are comparatively meagre in quantity.
In the first place, we know (a most important piece of knowledge) that,
as a rule, Latin was pronounced as written. This is evident from the
fact, among others, that the same exceptions recur, and are mentioned
over and over again, in the grammarians, and that so much is made of
comparatively, and confessedly, insignificant points. Such, we may be
sure, would not have been the case had exceptions been numerous. Then we
have the authority of Quintilian--than whom is no higher. He speaks of
the subtleties of the grammarians:
[Quint. I. iv. 6.] Interiora velut sacri hujus adeuntibus apparebit
multa rerum subtilitas, quae non modo acuere ingenia puerilia sed
exercere altissimam quoque eruditionem ac scientiam possit.
And says:
[Id. ib. iv. 7.] An cujuslibet auris est exigere litterarum sonos?
But after citing some of those idiosyncrasies which appear on the pages
of all the grammarians, he finally sums up the matter in the following
significant words:
[Id. ib. vii. 30, 31.] Indicium autem suum grammaticus interponat
his omnibus; nam hoc valere plurimum debet. Ego (note the _ego_)
nisi quod consuetudo obtinuerit sic scribendum quidque judico,
quomodo sonat. Hic enim est usus litterarum, ut custodiant voces et
velut depositum reddant legentibus, itaque id exprimere debent quod
dicturi sumus.
This is still a characteristic of the Italian language, so that one may
by books, getting the rules from the grammarians, learn to pronounce the
language with a good degree of correctness.
On this point Professor Munro says:
“We see in the first volume of the Corpus Inscr. Latin. a map, as it
were, of the language spread open before us, and feel sure that change
of spelling meant systematical change of pronunciation: _coira_,
_coera_, _cura_; _aiquos_, _aequos_, _aecus_; _queicumque_, _quicumque_,
etc., etc.”
And again:
“We know exactly how Cicero or Quintilian did or could spell; we know
the syllable on which they placed the accent of almost every word; and
in almost every case we already follow them in this. I have the
conviction that in their best days philological people took vast pains
to make the writing exactly reproduce the sounding; and that if
Quintilian or Tacitus spelt a word differently from Cicero or Livy, he
also spoke it so far differently.”
Three chief factors are essential to the Latin language, and each of
these must be known with some good degree of certainty, if we would lay
claim to an understanding of Roman pronunciation.
These are:
(1) Sounds of the letters (vowels, diphthongs, consonants);
(2) Quantity;
(3) Accent.
+SOUNDS OF THE LETTERS.+
VOWELS.
The vowels are five: +a+, +e+, +i+, +o+, +u+.
These when uttered alone are always long.
[Pompei. _Comm. ad Donat._ Keil. v. V. p. 101 et al.] Vocales autem
quinque sunt: +a+, +e+, +i+, +o+, +u+. Istae quinque, quando solae
proferuntur, longae sunt semper: quando solas litteras dicis, longae
sunt. +A+ sola longa est; +e+ sola longa est.
+A+ is uttered with the mouth widely opened, the tongue suspended and
not touching the teeth:
[Ars Gram. Mar. Vict. de orthographia et de metrica ratione, I. vi.
6.] +A+ littera rictu patulo, suspensa neque impressa dentibus
lingua, enuntiatur.
+E+ is uttered with the mouth less widely open, and the lips drawn back
and inward:
[Id. ib. vi. 7.] +E+ quae sequitur, de represso modice rictu oris,
reductisque introrsum labiis, effertur.
+I+ will voice itself with the mouth half closed and the teeth gently
pressed by the tongue:
[Id. ib. vi. 8.] +I+ semicluso ore, impressisque sensim lingua
dentibus, vocem dabit.
+O+ (long) will give the “tragic sound” through rounded opening, with
lips protruded, the tongue pendulous in the roof of the mouth:
[Id. ib. vi. 9.] +O+ longum autem, protrusis labiis, rictu tereti,
lingua arcu oris pendula, sonum tragicum dabit.
+U+ is uttered with the lips protruding and approaching each other, like
the Greek ου:
[Id. ib. vi. 10.] +U+ litteram quotiens enuntiamus, productis et
coeuntibus labris efferemus . . . quam nisi per ου conjunctam Graeci
scribere ac pronuntiare non possunt.
Of these five vowels the grammarians say that three (+a+, +i+, +u+) do
not change their quality with their quantity:
[Pompei. _Comm. ad Donat._ Keil. v. V. p. 101.] De istis quinque
litteris tres sunt, quae sive breves sive longae ejusdemmodi sunt,
+a, i, u+: similiter habent sive longae sive breves.
But two (+e+, +o+) change their quality:
[Id. ib.] +O+ vero et +e+ non sonant breves.
+E+ aliter longa aliter brevis sonat. Dicit ita Terentianus (hoc
dixit) ‘Quotienscumque +e+ longam volumus proferri, vicina sit ad
+i+ litteram.’ Ipse sonus sic debet sonare, quomodo sonat +i+
littera. Quando dicis _evitat_, vicina debet esse, sic pressa, sic
angusta, ut vicina sit ad +i+ litteram. Quando vis dicere brevem +e+
simpliciter sonat. +O+ longa sit an brevis. Si longa est, debet
sonus ipse intra palatum sonare, ut si dices _orator_, quasi intra
sonat, intra palatum. Si brevis est debet primis labris sonare,
quasi extremis labris, ut puta sic dices _obit_. Habes istam regulam
expressam in Terentiano. Quando vis exprimere quia brevis est,
primis labris sonat; quando exprimis longam, intra palatum sonat.
[Ars Gram. Mar. Vict. de Orthog. et de Metr. Rat., I. vi. 9.] +O+
qui correptum enuntiat, nec magno hiatu labra reserabit, et
retrorsum actam linguam tenebit.
It would thus seem that the long +e+ of the Latin in its prolongation
draws into the +i+ sound, somewhat as if +i+ were subjoined, as in the
English _vein_ or Italian _fedele_.
The grammarians speak of the obscure sound of +i+ and +u+, short and
unaccented in the middle of a word; so that in a number of words +i+ and
+u+ were written indifferently, even by classic writers, as _optimus_ or
_optumus_, _maximus_ or _maxumus_. This is but a simple and natural
thing. The same obscurity occurs often in English, as, for instance, in
words ending in _able_ or _ible_. How easy, for instance, to confuse the
sound and spelling in such words as _detestable_ and _digestible_.
[Serg. Explan. Art. Donat. Keil. v. II. p. 475.] Hae etiam duae +i+
et +u+ . . . interdum expressum suum sonum non habent: +i+, ut
_vir_; +u+, ut _optumus_. Non enim possumus dicere _vir_ producta
+i+, nec _optumus_ producta +u+; unde etiam mediae dicuntur. Et hoc
in commune patiuntur inter se, et bene dixit Donatus has litteras in
quibusdam dictionibus expressum suum sonum non habere. Hae etiam
mediae dicuntur, quia quibusdam dictionibus expressum sonum non
habent, . . . ut _maxume_ pro _maxime_. . . . In quibusdam nominibus
non certum exprimunt sonum; +i+, ut _vir_ modo +i+ opprimitur;
+u+ ut _optumus_ modo +u+ perdit sonum.
Priscian says:
[Keil. v. II. p. 465.] Cur per +vi+ scribitur (virum)? Quia omnia
nomina a +vi+ syllaba incipientia per +vi+ scribuntur exceptis
_bitumine_ et _bile_, quando _fel_ significat, et illis quae a _bis_
adverbio componuntur, ut _biceps_, _bipatens_, _bivium_. Cur sonum
videtur habere in hac dictione +i+ vocalis +u+ litterae Graecae?
Quia omnis dictio a +vi+ syllaba brevi incipiens, +d+ vel +t+ vel
+m+ vel +r+ vel +x+ sequentibus, hoc sono pronuntiatur, ut _video_,
_videbam_, _videbo_: quia in his temporibus +vi+ corripitur, mutavit
sonum in +u+: in praeterito autem perfecto, et in aliis in quibus
producitur, naturalem servavit sonum, ut _vidi_, _videram_,
_vidissem_, _videro_. Similiter _vitium_ mutat sonum, quia
corripitur; _vita_ autem non mutat, quia producitur. Similiter _vim_
mutat quia corripitur, _vimen_ autem non mutat quia producitur.
Similiter _vir_ et _virgo_ mutant, quia corripiuntur: _virus_ autem
et _vires_ non mutant, quia producuntur. _Vix_ mutant, quia
corripitur: _vixi_ non mutant, quia producitur. Hoc idem plerique
solent etiam in illis dictionibus facere, in quibus a +fi+ brevi
incipiunt syllabae sequentibus supra dictis consonantibus, ut
_fides_, _perfidus_, _confiteor_, _infimus_, _firmus_. Sunt autem
qui non adeo hoc observant, cum de +vi+ nemo fere dubitat.
From this it would seem that in the positions above mentioned +vi+
short--and with some speakers +fi+ short--had an obscure, somewhat
thickened, sound, not unlike that heard in the English words _virgin_,
_firm_, a not unnatural obscuration. As Donatus says of it:
[Keil. v. IV. p. 367.] Pingue nescio quid pro naturali sono
usurpamus.
Sometimes, apparently, this tendency ran into excess, and the long +i+
was also obscured; while sometimes the short +i+ was pronounced too
distinctly. This vice is commented on by the grammarians, under the name
_iotacism_:
[Pompei. Comm. ad Donat. Keil. v. V. p. 394.] _Iotacismum_ dicunt
vitium quod per +i+ litteram vel pinguius vel exilius prolatam fit.
Galli pinguius hanc utuntur, ut cum dicunt _ite_, non expresse ipsam
proferentes, sed inter +e+ et +i+ pinguiorem sonum nescio quem
ponentes. Graeci exilius hanc proferunt, adeo expressioni ejus tenui
studentes, ut si dicant _jus_, aliquantulum de priori littera sic
proferant, ut videas dissyllabam esse factam. Romanae linguae in hoc
erit moderatio, ut exilis ejus sonus sit, ubi ab ea verbum incipit,
ut _ite_, aut pinguior, ubi in ea desinit verbum, ut _habui_,
_tenui_; medium quendam sonum inter +e+ et +i+ habet, ubi in medio
sermone est, ut _hominem_. Mihi tamen videtur, quando producta est,
plenior vel acutior esse; quando autem brevis est medium sonum
exhibere debet, sicut eadem exempla quae posita sunt possunt
declarare.
The grammarians also note the peculiar relation of +u+ to +q+, as in the
following passage:
[Serg. Explan. Art. Donat. Keil. v. IV. p. 475.] +U+ vero hoc
accidit proprium, ut interdum nec vocalis nec consonans sit, hoc est
ut non sit littera, cum inter +q+ et aliquam vocalem ponitur. Nam
consonans non potest esse, quia ante se habet alteram consonantem,
id est +q+; vocalis esse non potest, quia sequitur illam vocalis, ut
_quare_, _quomodo_.
DIPHTHONGS.
In Marius Victorinus we find diphthongs thus defined:
[Mar. Vict. Gaisford, I. v. 54.] Duae inter se vocales jugatae ac
sub unius vocis enuntiatione prolatae syllabam faciunt natura
longam, quam Graeci _diphthongon_ vocant, veluti geminae vocis unum
sonum, ut +ae+, +oe+, +au+.
And more fully in the following paragraph:
[Mar. Vict. Gaisford, I. v. 6.] Sunt longae naturaliter syllabae,
cum duae vocales junguntur, quas syllabas Graeci _diphthongos_
vocant; ut +ae+, +oe+, +au+, +eu+, +ei+: nam illae diphthongi non
sunt quae fiunt per vocales loco consonantium positas; ut +ia+,
+ie+, +ii+, +io+, +iu+, +va+, +ve+, +vi+, +vo+, +vu+.
Of these diphthongs +eu+ occurs,--except in Greek words,--only in
_heus_, _heu_, _eheu_; in _seu_, _ceu_, _neu_. In _neuter_ and
_neutiquam_ the +e+ is probably elided.
Diphthongs ending in +i+, viz., +ei+, +oi+, +ui+, occur only in a few
interjections and in cases of contraction.
While in pronouncing the diphthong the sound of both vowels was to some
extent preserved, there are many indications that (in accordance with
the custom of making a vowel before another vowel short) the first vowel
of the diphthong was hastened over and the second received the stress.
As in modern Greek we find all diphthongs that end in _iota_ pronounced
as simple +i+, so in Latin there are numerous instances, before and
during the classic period, of the use of +e+ for +ae+ or +oe+, and it is
to be noted that in the latest spelling +e+ generally prevails.
Munro says:
“In Lucilius’s time the rustics said _Cecilius pretor_ for _Caecilius
praetor_; in two Samothracian inscriptions older than B.C. 100 (the
sound of +ai+ by that time verging to an open +e+), we find _muste piei_
and _muste_: in similar inscriptions μύσται piei, and _mystae_:
_Paeligni_ is reproduced in Strabo by Πελιγνόι: Cicero, Virgil, Festus,
and Servius all alike give _caestos_ for κεστός: by the first century,
perhaps sooner, +e+ was very frequently put for +ae+ in words like
_taeter_: we often find _teter_, _erumna_, _mestus_, _presto_ and the
like: soon inscriptions and MSS. began pertinaciously to offer +ae+ for
+ĕ+: _praetum_, _praeces_, _quaerella_, _aegestas_ and the like, the
+ae+ representing a short and very open +e+: sometimes it stands for a
long +e+, as often in _plaenus_, the liquid before and after making
perhaps the +e+ more open (σκηνή is always _scaena_): and it is from
this form _plaenus_ that in Italian, contrary to the usual law of long
Latin +e+, we have _pièno_ with open +e+. With such pedigree then, and
with the genuine Latin +ae+ _always_ represented in Italian by open +e+,
can we hesitate to pronounce the +ae+ with this open +e+ sound?”
The argument sometimes used, for pronouncing +ae+ like +ai+, that in the
poets we occasionally find +ai+ in the genitive singular of the first
declension, appears to have little weight in view of the following
explanation:
[Mar. Vict, de Orthog. et de Metr. Rat., I. iii. 38.] +Ae+ Syllabam
quidam more Graecorum per +ai+ scribunt, nec illud quidem
custodient, quia omnes fere, qui de orthographia aliquid scriptum
reliquerunt, praecipiunt, nomina femina casu nominativo +a+ finita,
numero plurali in +ae+ exire, ut _Aeliae_: eadem per +a+ et +i+
scripta numerum singularem ostendere, ut hujus _Aeliai_: inducti a
poetis, qui _pictai vestis_ scripserunt: et quia Graeci per +i+
potissimum hanc syllabam scribunt propter exilitatem litterae,
η autem propter naturalem productionem jungere vocali alteri non
possunt: _iota_ vero, quae est brevis eademque longa, aptior ad hanc
structuram visa est: quam potestatem apud nos habet et +i+, quae est
longa et brevis. Vos igitur sine controversia ambiguitatis, et
pluralem nominativum, et singularem genitivum per +ae+ scribite: nam
qui non potest dignoscere supra scriptarum vocum numeros et casum,
valde est hebes.
Of +oe+ Munro says:
“When hateful barbarisms like _coelum_, _coena_, _moestus_ are
eliminated, +oe+ occurs very rarely in Latin: _coepi_, _poena_,
_moenia_, _coetus_, _proelia_, besides archaisms _coera_, _moerus_,
etc., where +oe+, coming from +oi+, passed into +u+. If we must have a
simple sound, I should take the open +e+ sound which I have given to
+ae+: but I should prefer one like the German +ö+. Their rarity,
however, makes the sound of +oe+, +eu+, +ui+ of less importance.”
Of +au+ Munro says:
“Here, too, +au+ has a curious analogy with +ae+: The Latin au becomes
in Italian open +o+: _òro òde_: I would pronounce thus in Latin:
_plòstrum_, _Clòdius_, _còrus_. Perhaps, too, the fact that _gloria_,
_vittoria_ and the common termination _-orio_, have in Italian the open
+o+, might show that the corresponding +ō+ in Latin was open by coming
between two liquids, or before one: compare _plenus_ above.” “I should
prefer,” he says, (to represent the Latin +au+,) “the Italian +au+,
which gives more of the +u+ than our _owl_, _cow_.”
CONSONANTS.
+B+ has, in general, the same sound as in English.
[Mar. Vict. Keil. v. VI. p. 32.] E quibus +b+ et +p+ litterae . . .
dispari inter se oris officio exprimuntur. Nam prima exploso e
mediis labiis sono, sequens compresso ore velut introrsum attracto
vocis ictu explicatur.
+B+ before +s+ or +t+ is sharpened to +p+: thus _urbs_ is pronounced
_urps_; _obtinuit_, _optinuit_. Some words, indeed, are written either
way; as _obses_, or _opses_; _obsonium_, or _opsonium_; _obtingo_, or
_optingo_; and Quintilian says it is a question whether the change
should be indicated in writing or not:
[Quint. I. vii. 7.] Quaeri solet, in scribendo praepositiones, sonum
quern junctae efficiunt an quem separatae, observare conveniat: ut
cum dico _obtinuit_, secundam enim +b+ litteram ratio poscit, aures
magis audiunt +p+.
This change, however, is both so slight and so natural that attention
need scarcely be called to it. Indeed if quantity is properly observed,
one can hardly go wrong. If, for instance, you attempt, in saying
_obtinuit_, to give its normal sound to +b+, you can scarcely avoid
making a false quantity (the first syllable too long), while if you
observe the quantity (first syllable short) your +b+ will change itself
to +p+.
+C+ appears to have but one sound, the hard, as in _sceptic_:
[Mar. Vict. Keil. v. VI. p. 32.] +C+ etiam et . . . +G+ sono
proximae, oris molimine nisuque dissentiunt. Nam +c+ reducta
introrsum lingua hinc atque hinc molares urgens haerentem intra os
sonum vocis excludit: +g+ vim prioris pari linguae habitu palato
suggerens lenius reddit.
Not only do we find no hint in the grammarians of any sound akin to the
soft +c+ in English, as in _sceptre_, but they all speak of +c+ and +k+
and +q+ as identical, or substantially so, in sound; and Quintilian
expressly states that the sound of +c+ is always the same. Speaking of
+k+ as superfluous, he says:
[Quint. I. vii. 10.] Nam +k+ quidem in nullis verbis utendum puto,
nisi quae significat, etiam ut sola ponatur. Hoc eo non omisi, quod
quidam eam quotiens a sequatur necessariam credunt, cum sit +c+
littera, quae ad omnes vocales vim suam perferat.
And Priscian declares:
[Keil. v. II. p. 13.] Quamvis in varia figura et vario nomine sint
+k+ et +q+ et +c+, tamen quia unam vim habent tam in metro quam in
sono, pro una littera accipi debent.
Without the best of evidence we should hardly believe that words written
indifferently with +ae+ or +e+ after +c+ would be so differently
pronounced by those using the diphthong and those using the simple
vowel, that, to take the instance already given, in the time of
Lucilius, the rustic said _Sesilius_ for _Kaekilius_. Nor does it seem
probable that in different cases the same word would vary so greatly, or
that in the numerous compounds where after +c+ the +a+ weakens to +i+
the sound of the +c+ was also changed from +k+ to +s+, as “_kapio_”
“_insipio_”; “_kado_,” “_insido_.”
Quintilian, noting the changes of fashion in the sounding of the +h+,
enumerates, among other instances of excessive use of the aspirate, the
words _choronae_ (for _coronae_), _chenturiones_ (for _centuriones_),
_praechones_ (for _praecones_), as if the three words were alike in
their initial sound.
Alluding to inscriptions (first volume), where we have _pulcher_ and
_pulcer_, _Gracchis_ and _Graccis_, Mr. Munro says: “I do not well see
how the aspirate could have been attached to the +c+, if +c+ had not a
+k+ sound, or how in this case +c+ before +e+ or +i+ could have differed
from +c+ before +a+, +o+, +u+.”
Professor Munro also cites an inscription (844 of the “Corpus Inscr.,”
vol. I.) bearing on the case in another way. In this inscription we have
the word _dekembres_. “This,” says Mr. Munro, “is one of nearly two
hundred short, plebeian, often half-barbarous, very old inscriptions on
a collection of ollae. The +k+ before +e+, or any letter except +a+, is
solecistic, just as in no. 831 is the +c+, instead of +k+, for
_calendas_. From this I would infer that, as in the latter the writer
saw no difference between +c+ and +k+, so to the writer of the former
+k+ was the same as +c+ before +e+.”
Again he says:
“And finally, what is to me most convincing of all, I do not well
understand how in a people of grammarians, when for seven hundred years,
from Ennius to Priscian, the most distinguished writers were also the
most minute philologers, not one, so far as we know, should have hinted
at any difference, if such existed.”
As to the peculiar effect of +c+ final in certain particles to
“lengthen” the vowel before it, this +c+ is doubtless the remnant of the
intensive enclitic +ce+, and the so-called ‘length’ is not in the vowel,
but in the more forcible utterance of the +c+. It is true that Priscian
says:
[Keil. v. II. p. 34.] Notandum, quod ante hanc solam mutam finalem
inveniuntur longae vocales, ut _hōc_, _hāc_, _sīc_, _hīc_ adverbium.
And Probus speaks of +c+ as often prolonging the vowel before it. But
Victorinus, more philosophically, attributes the length to the “double”
sound of the consonant:
[Mar. Vict. I. v. 46.] Consideranda ergo est in his duntaxat
pronominibus natura +c+ litterae, quae crassum quodammodo et quasi
geminum sonum reddat, _hic_ et _hoc_.
And he adds that you do not get that more emphatic sound in, for
instance, the conjunction _nec_.
Si autem _nec_ conjunctionem aspiciamus, licet eadem littera
finitam, diversum tamen sonabit.
And again:
Ut dixi, in pronominibus c littera sonum efficit crassiorem.
Pompeius, commenting upon certain vices of speech, says that some
persons bring out the final +c+ in certain words too heavily,
pronouncing _sic ludit_ as _sic cludit_; while others, on the contrary,
touch it so lightly that when the following word begins with +c+ you
hear but a single +c+:
[Keil. v. V. p. 394.] Item litteram +c+ quidam in quibusdam
dictionibus non latine ecferunt, sed ita crasse, ut non discernas
quid dicant: ut puta siquis dicat _sic ludit_, ita hoc loquitur ut
putes eum in secunda parte orationis _cludere_ dixisse, non
_ludere_: et item si contra dicat illud contrarium putabis. Alii
contra ita subtiliter hoc ecferunt, ut cum duo +c+ habeant,
desinentis prioris partis orationis et incipientis alterius, sic
loquantur quasi uno +c+ utrumque explicent, ut dicunt multi _sic
custodit_.
+D+, in general, is pronounced as in English, except that the tongue
should touch the teeth rather than the palate.
[Pompei. _Comm. ad Donat._ Keil. v. VI. p. 32.] +D+ autem et +t+
quibus, ut ita dixerim, vocis vicinitas quaedam est, linguae
sublatione ac positione distinguuntur. Nam cum summos atque imos
conjunctim dentes suprema sui parte pulsaverit +d+ litteram
exprimit. Quotiens autem sublimata partem, qua superis dentibus est
origo, contigerit +t+ sonare vocis explicabit.
But when certain words in common use ending in +d+ were followed by
words beginning with a consonant, the sound of the +d+ was sharpened to
+t+; and indeed the word was often, especially by the earlier writers,
written with +t+, as, for instance, _set_, _haut_, _aput_:
[Mar. Vict. I. iii. 50.] +D+ tamen litteram conservat si sequens
verbum incipiat a vocali; ut _haud aliter muros_; et _haud equidem_.
At cum verbum a consonante incipit, +d+ perdit, _ut haut dudum_, et
_haut multum_, et _haut placitura refert_, et inducit +t+.
+F+ is pronounced as in English except that it should be brought out
more forcibly, with more breath.
[Keil. v. VI. p. 31.] +F+ litteram imum labium superis imprimentibus
dentibus, reflexa ad palati fastigium lingua, leni spiramine
proferemus.
Marius Victorinus says that +f+ was used in Latin words as +ph+ in
foreign.
Diomedes (of the fourth century) says the same:
[Diom. Keil. v. I. p. 422.] Id hoc scire debemus quod +f+ littera
tum scribitur cum Latina dictio scribitur, ut _felix_. Nam si
peregrina fuerit, +p+ et +h+ scribimus, ut _Phoebus_, _Phaethon_.
And Priscian makes a similar statement:
[Prisc. Keil. v. I. p. 35.] +F+ multis modis muta magis ostenditur,
cum pro +p+ et aspiratione, quae similiter muta est, accipitur.
From the following words of Quintilian we may judge the breathing to
have been quite pronounced:
[Quint. XII. x. 29.] Nam et ilia quae est sexta nostrarum, paene non
humana voce, vel omnino non voce, potius inter discrimina dentium
efflanda est, quae etiam cum vocalem proxima accipit quassa
quodammodo, utique quotiens aliquam consonantem frangit, ut in hoc
ipso _frangit_, multo fit horridior.
+G+, no less than +c+, appears to have had but one sound, the hard, as
in the English word _get_.
[Mar. Vict. Keil. v. VI. p. 32.] +C+ etiam et +g+, ut supra
scriptae, sono proximae, oris molimine nisuque dissentiunt. Nam +c+
reducta introrsum lingua, hinc atque hinc molares urgens, haerentem
intra os sonum vocis excludit: +g+ vim prioris, pari linguae habitu
palato suggerens, lenius reddit.
Diomedes speaks of +g+ as a new consonant, whose place had earlier been
filled by +c+:
[Keil. v. I. p. 423.] +G+ nova est consonans, in cujus locum +c+
solebat adponi, sicut hodieque cum Gaium notamus Caesarem, scribimus
+C. C.+, ideoque etiam post +b+ litteram, id est tertio loco,
digesta est, ut apud Graecos γ posita reperitur in eo loco.
Victorinus thus refers to the old custom still in use of writing +C+ and
+Cn+, as initials, in certain names, even where the names were
pronounced as with +G+.
[Mar. Vict. I. iii. 98.] +C+ autem et nomen habuisse +g+ et usum
praestitisse, quod nunc _Caius_ per +C+, et _Cneius_ per +Cn+,
quamvis utrimque syllabae sonus +g+ exprimat, scribuntur.
+H+ has the same sound as in English. The grammarians never regarded it
as a consonant,--at least in more than name,--but merely as representing
the rough breathing of the Greeks.
Victorinus thus speaks of its nature:
[Keil. v. VI. p. 32.] +H+ quoque inter litteras obviam grammatici
tradiderunt, eamque adspirationis notam cunctis vocalibus praefici;
ipsi autem consonantes tantum quattuor praeponi, quotiens graecis
nominibus latina forma est, persuaserunt, id est +c+, +p+, +r+, +t+;
ut _chori_, _Phyllis_, _rhombos_, _thymos_; quae profundo spiritu,
anhelis faucibus, exploso ore, fundetur.
By the best authorities +h+ was looked upon as a mere mark of
aspiration. Victorinus says that Nigidius Figulus so regarded it:
[Mar. Vict. I. iv. 5.] Idem (N. F.) +h+ non esse litteram, sed notam
adspirationis tradidit.
There appears to have been the same difference of opinion and usage
among the Romans as with us in the matter of sounding the +h+.
Quintilian says that the fashion changed with the age:
[Quint. I. v. 19, 20, 21.] Cujus quidem ratio mutata cum temporibus
est saepius. Parcissime ea veteres usi etiam in vocalibus, cum
_oedus vicos_que dicebant, diu deinde servatum ne consonantibus
aspirarent, ut in _Graecis_ et in _triumpis_; erupit brevi tempore
nimius usus, ut _choronae_, _chenturiones_, _praechones_, adhuc
quibusdam inscriptionibus maneant, qua de re Catulli nobile
epigramma est. Inde durat ad nos usque _vehementer_, et
_comprehendere_, et _mihi_, nam _mehe_ quoque pro me apud antiquos
tragoediarum praecipue scriptores in veteribus libris invenimus.
In the epigram above referred to Catullus thus satirizes the excessive
use of the aspirate:
[Catullus lxxxiv.]
Chommoda dicebat, si quando commoda vellet
Dicere, et hinsidias Arrius insidias:
Et tum mirifice sperabat se esse locutum,
Cum quantum poterat dixerat hinsidias.
Credo sic mater, sic Liber avunculus ejus,
Sic maternus avus dixerat, atque avia.
Hoc misso in Syriam requierunt omnibus aures;
Audibant eadem haec leniter et leviter.
Nec sibi post illa metuebant talia verba,
Cum subito adfertur nuntius horribilis,
Ionios fluctus postquam illuc Arrius isset
Jam non Ionios esse, sed Hionios.
On the other hand Quintilian seems disposed to smile at the excess of
‘culture’ which drops its +h+’s, to class this with other affected
‘niceties’ of speech, and to regard the whole matter as of slight
importance:
[Quint. I. vi. 21, 22.] Multum enim litteratus, qui sine aspiratione
et producta secunda syllaba salutarit (_avere_ est enim), et
_calefacere_ dixerit potius quam quod dicimus, et _conservavisse_;
his adjiciat _face_ et _dice_ et similia. Recta est haec via, quis
negat? sed adjacet mollior et magis trita.
Cicero confesses that he himself changed his practice in regard to the
aspirate. He had been accustomed to sound it only with vowels, and to
follow the fathers, who never used it with a consonant; but at length,
yielding to the importunity of his ear, he conceded the right of usage
to the people, and ‘kept his learning to himself.’
[Cic. Or. XLVIII. 160.] Quin ego ipse, cum scirem ita majores
locutos esse ut nusquam nisi in vocali aspiratione uterentur,
loquebar sic, ut _pulcros_, _cetegus_, _triumpos_, _Kartaginem_,
dicerem; aliquando, idque sero, convicio aurium cum extorta mihi
veritas, usum loquendi populo concessi, scientiam mihi reservavi.
Gellius speaks of the ancients as having employed the +h+ merely to add
a certain force and life to the word, in imitation of the Attic tongue,
and enumerates some of these words. Thus, he says, they said
_lachrymas_; thus, _sepulchrum_, _aheneum_, _vehemens_, _inchoare_,
_helvari_, _hallucinari_, _honera_, _honustum_.
[Gellius II. iii.] In his enim verbis omnibus litterae, seu spiritus
istius nulla ratio visa est, nisi ut firmitas et vigor vocis, quasi
quibusdam nervis additis, intenderetur.
And he tells an interesting anecdote about a manuscript of Vergil:
Sed quoniam _aheni_ quoque exemplo usi sumus, venit nobis in
memoriam, fidum optatumque, multi nominis Romae, grammaticum
ostendisse mihi librum Aeneidos secundum mirandae vetustatis, emptum
in Sigillariis XX. aureis, quem ipsius Vergilii fuisse credebat; in
quo duo isti versus cum ita scripti forent:
“Vestibulum ante ipsum, primoque in limine, Pyrrhus:
Exultat telis, et luce coruscus aëna.”
Additam supra vidimus +h+ litteram, et _ahena_ factum. Sic in illo
quoque Vergilii versu in optimis libris scriptum invenimus:
“Aut foliis undam tepidi dispumat aheni.”
+I+ consonant has the sound of +i+ in the English word _onion_.
The grammarians all express themselves in nearly the same terms as to
its character:
[Serg. Explan. in Art. Donat. Keil. v. IV. p. 520.] +I+ et +u+
varias habent potestates: nam sunt aliquando vocales, aliquando
consonantes, aliquando mediae, aliquando nihil, aliquando digammae,
aliquando duplices. Vocales sunt quando aut singulae positae
syllabam faciunt aut aliis consonantibus sociantur, ut _Iris_ et
_unus_ et _Isis_ et _urna_. Consonantes autem sunt, cum aliis
vocalibus in una syllaba praeponuntur, aut cum ipsae inter se in una
syllaba conjunguntur. Nisi enim et prior sit et in una syllaba secum
habeat conjunctam vocalem, non erit consonans +i+ vel +u+. Nam
_Iulius_ et _Iarbas_ cum dicis, +i+ consonans non est, licet
praecedat, quia in una syllaba secum non habet conjunctam vocalem,
sed in altera consequentem.
The grammarians speak of +i+ consonant as different in sound and effect
from the vowel +i+; and, as they do not say how it differs, we naturally
infer the variation to be that which follows in the nature of things
from its position and office, as in the kindred Romance languages.
Priscian says:
[Keil. v. II. p. 13.] Sic +i+ et +u+, quamvis unum nomen et unam
habeant figuram tam vocales quam consonantes, tamen, quia diversum
sonum et diversam vim habent in metris et in pronuntiatione
syllabarum, non sunt in eisdem meo judicio elementis accipiendae,
quamvis et Censorino, doctissimo artis grammaticae, idem placuit.
It would seem to be by reason of this twofold nature (vowel and
consonant) that +i+ has its ‘lengthening’ power. Probus explains the
matter thus:
[Keil. v. IV. p. 220.] Praeterea vim naturamque +i+ litterae vocalis
plenissime debemus cognoscere, quod duarum interdum loco
consonantium ponatur. Hanc enim ex suo numero vocales duplicem
litteram mittunt, ut cetera elementa litterarum singulas duplices
mittunt, de quibus suo disputavimus loco. Illa ergo ratione +i+
littera duplicem sonum designat, una quamvis figura sit, si undique
fuerit cincta vocalibus, ut _acerrimus Aiax_, et
“Aio te, Eacida, Romanos vincere posse.”
Again in the commentaries on Donatus we find:
[Keil. v. IV. p. 421.] Plane sciendum est quod +i+ inter duas posita
vocales in una parte orationis pro duabus est consonantibus, ut
_Troia_.
Priscian tells us that earlier it was, as we know, the custom to write
two +i+’s:
[Keil. v. III. p. 467.] Antiqui solebant duas +ii+ scribere, et
alteram priori subjungere, alteram praeponere sequenti, ut _Troiia_,
_Maiia_, _Aiiax_.
And Quintilian says:
[Quint. I. iv. II.] Sciat etiam Ciceroni placuisse _aiio Maiiam_que
geminata +i+ scribere.
This doubling of the sound of +i+, natural, even unavoidable, between
vowels, gives us the consonant effect (as vowel, uniting with the
preceding, as consonant, introducing the following, vowel).
+K+ has the same sound as in English.
The grammarians generally agree that +k+ is a superfluous, or at least
unnecessary, letter, its place being filled by +c+. Diomedes says:
[Keil. v. I. pp. 423, 424.] Ex his quibusdam supervacuae videntur
+k+ et +q+, quod +c+ littera harum locum possit implere.
And again:
+K+ consonans muta supervacua, qua utimur quando +a+ correpta
sequitur, ut _Kalendae_, _caput_, _calumniae_.
Its only use is as an initial and sign of certain words, and it is
followed by short +a+ only.
Victorinus says:
[I. iii. 23.] +K+ autem dicitur monophonos, quia nulli vocali
jungitur nisi soli +a+ brevi: et hoc ita ut ab ea pars orationis
incipit, aliter autem non recte scribitur.
Priscian says:
[Keil. v. II. p. 36.] +K+ supervacua est, ut supra diximus: quae
quamvis scribetur nullam aliam vim habet quam +c+.
And Quintilian speaks of it as a mere sign, but says some think it
should be used when +a+ follows, as initial:
[Quint. I. iv. 9.] Et +k+, quae et ipsa quorundam nominum nota est.
And:
[Quint. I. vii. 10.] Nam +k+ quidem in nullis verbis utendum puto
nisi quae significat etiam ut sola ponatur. Hoc eo non omisi quod
quidam eam quotiens +a+ sequatur necessariam credunt, cum sit +c+
littera, quae ad omnes vocales vim suam perferat.
This use of +k+, as an initial, and in certain words, was regarded
somewhat in the light of a literary ‘fancy.’ Priscian says of it:
[Keil. v. II. p. 12.] Et +k+ quidem penitus supervacua est; nulla
enim videtur ratio cur +a+ sequente haec scribi debeat: _Carthago_
enim et _caput_ sive per +c+ sive per +k+ scribantur nullam faciunt
nec in sono nec in potestate ejusdem consonantis differentiam.
+L+ is pronounced as in English, only more distinctly and with the
tongue more nearly approaching the teeth. The sound is thus given by
Victorinus:
[Keil. v. VI. p. 32.] Sequetur +l+, quae validum nescio quid partem
palati qua primordium dentibus superis est lingua trudente, diducto
ore personabit.
But it varies according to its position in the force and distinctness
with which it is uttered.
Pliny and others recognize three degrees of force:
Priscian says:
[Keil. v. II. p. 29.] +L+ triplicem, ut Plinius videtur, sonum
habet: exilem, quando geminatur secundo loco posita, ut _ille_,
_Metellus_; plenum, quando finit nomina vel syllabas, et quando
aliquam habet ante se in eadem syllaba consonantem, ut _sol_,
_silva_, _flavus_, _clarus_; medium in aliis, ut _lectum_, _lectus_.
Pompeius, in his commentaries on Donatus, makes nearly the same
statement, when treating of ‘_labdacism_’:
[Keil. v. V. p. 394.] _Labdacismum_ vitium in eo esse dicunt quod
eadem littera vel subtilius, a quibusdam, vel pinguius, ecfertur. Et
re vera alterutrum vitium quibusdam gentibus est. Nam ecce Graeci
subtiliter hunc sonum ecferunt. Ubi enim dicunt _ille mihi dixit_
sic sonat duae +ll+ primae syllabae quasi per unum +l+ sermo ipse
consistet. Contra alii sic pronuntiant _ille meum comitatus iter_,
et _illum ego per flammas eripui_ ut aliquid illic soni etiam
consonantis ammiscere videantur, quod pinguissimae prolationis est.
Romana lingua emendationem habet in hoc quoque distinctione. Nam
alicubi pinguius, alicubi debet exilius, proferri: pinguius cum vel
+b+ sequitur, ut in _albo_; vel +c+, ut in _pulchro_; vel +f+, ut in
_adelfis_; vel +g+, ut in _alga_; vel +m+, ut in _pulmone_; vel +p+,
ut in _scalpro_: exilius autem proferenda est ubicumque ab ea verbum
incipit; ut in _lepore_, _lana_, _lupo_; vel ubi in eodem verbo et
prior syllaba in hac finitur, et sequens ab ea incipit, ut _ille_ et
_Allia_.
In another place he speaks of the Africans as ‘abounding’ in this vice,
and of their pronouncing _Metellus_ and _Catullus_; _Metelus_,
_Catulus_:
[Keil. v. V. p. 287.] In his etiam agnoscimus gentium vitia;
_labdacismis_ scatent Afri, raro est ut aliquis dicat +l+: per
geminum +l+ sic loquuntur Romani, omnes Latini sic loquuntur,
_Catullus_, _Metellus_.
+M+ is pronounced as in English, except before +q+, where it has a nasal
sound, and when final.
[Mar. Vict. Keil. v. VI. p. 32.] +M+ impressis invicem labiis
mugitum quendam intra oris specum attractis naribus dabit.
But this ‘mooing’ sound, in which so many of their words ended, was not
altogether pleasing to the Roman ear. Quintilian exclaims against it:
[Quint. XII. x. 31.] Quid quod pleraque nos illa quasi mugiente
littera cludimus +m+, qua nullum Graece verbum cadit.
The offensive sound was therefore gotten rid of, as far as possible, by
obscuring the +m+ at the end of a word. Priscian speaks of three sounds
of +m+,--at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of a word:
[Prisc. Keil. v. II. p. 29.] +M+ obscurum in extremitate dictionum
sonat, ut _templum_, apertum in principio, ut _magnus_; mediocre in
mediis, ut _umbra_.
This ‘obscuring’ led in verse to the cutting off of the final syllable
in +m+ when the following word began with a vowel,--as Priscian remarks
in the same connection:
Finales dictionis subtrahitur +m+ in metro plerumque, si a vocali
incipit sequens dictio, ut:
“Illum expirantem transfixo pectore flammas.”
Yet, he adds, the ancients did not always withdraw the sound:
Vetustissimi tamen non semper eam subtrahebant, Ennius in X
Annalium:
“Insigneita fere tum milia militum octo
Duxit delectos bellum tolerare potentes.”
The +m+ was not, however, entirely ignored. Thus Quintilian says:
[Quint. IX. iv. 40.] Atqui eadem illa littera, quotiens ultima est
et vocalem verbi sequentis ita contingit ut in eam transire possit,
etiamsi scribitur tamen parum exprimitur, ut _multum ille_ et
_quantum erat_; adeo ut paene cujusdam novae litterae sonum reddat.
Neque enim eximitur, sed obscuratur, et tantum aliqua inter duas
vocales velut nota est, ne ipsae coeant.
It is a significant fact in this connection that +m+ is the only one of
the liquids (semivowels) that does not allow a long vowel before it.
Priscian, mentioning several peculiarities of this semivowel, thus
speaks of this one:
[Priscian. Keil. v. II. p. 23.] Nunquam tamen eadem +m+ ante se
natura longam (vocalem) patitur in eadem syllaba esse, ut _illam_,
_artem_, _puppim_, _illum_, _rem_, _spem_, _diem_, cum aliae omnes
semivocales hoc habent, ut _Maecenas_, _Paean_, _sol_, _pax_, _par_.
That the +m+ was really sounded we may infer from Pompeius (on Donatus)
where, treating of _myotacism_, he calls it the careless pronunciation
of +m+ between two vowels (at the end of one word and the beginning of
another), the running of the words together in such a way that +m+ seems
to begin the second, rather than to end the first:
[Keil. v. V. p. 287.] Ut si dices _hominem amicum_, _oratorem
optimum_. Non enim videris dicere _hominem amicum_, sed _homine
mamicum_, quod est incongruum et inconsonans. Similiter _oratorem
optimum_ videris _oratore moptimum_.
He also warns against the vice of dropping the +m+ altogether. One must
neither say _homine mamicum_, nor _homine amicum_:
Plerumque enim aut suspensione pronuntiatur aut exclusione. . . .
Nos quid sequi debemus? Quid? per suspensionem tantum modo. Qua
ratione? Quia si dixeris per suspensionem _homimem amicum_, et haec
vitium vitabis, _myotacismum_, et non cades in aliud vitium, id est
in hiatum.
From such passages it would seem that the final syllable ending in +m+
is to be lightly and rapidly pronounced, the +m+ not to be run over upon
the following word.
Some hint of the sound may perhaps be got from the Englishman’s
pronunciation of such words as Birmingham (Birminghm), Sydenham
(Sydenhm), Blenheim (Blenhm).
+N+, except when followed by +f+ or +s+, is pronounced as in English,
only that it is more dental.
[Mar. Vict. Keil. v. VI. p. 32.] +N+ vero, sub convexo palati lingua
inhaerente, gemino naris et oris spiritu explicabitur.
Naturally, as with us, it is more emphatic at the beginning and end of
words than in the middle (as, _Do not give the tendrils the wrong turn.
Is not the sin condemned?_)
Priscian says:
[Keil. v. II. p. 29.] +N+ quoque plenior in primis sonat, et in
ultimis, partibus syllabarum, ut _nomen_, _stamen_; exilior in
mediis, ut _amnis_, _damnum_.
As in English, before a guttural (+c+, +g+, +q+, +x+), +n+ is so
affected as to leave its proper sound incomplete (the tongue not
touching the roof of the mouth) while it draws the guttural, so to
speak, into itself, as in the English words _concord_, _anger_,
_sinker_, _relinquish_, _anxious_.
[Nigidius apud Gell. XIX. xiv. 7.] Inter litteram +n+ et +g+ est
alia vis, ut in nomine _anguis_ et _angaria_ et _anchorae_ et
_increpat_ et _incurrit_ et _ingenuus_. In omnibus enim his non
verum +n+ sed adulterinum ponitur. Nam _n_ non esse lingua indicio
est. Nam si ea littera esset lingua palatum tangeret.
Not only the Greeks, but some of the early Romans, wrote +g+, instead of
+n+, in this position, and gave to the letter so used a new name,
_agma_. Priscian says:
[Keil. v. II. p. 29.] Sequente +g+ vel +c+, pro ea (+n+) +g+
scribunt Graeci et quidam tamen vetustissimi auctores Romani
euphoniae causa bene hoc facientes, ut _Agchises_, _agceps_,
_aggulus_, _aggens_, quod ostendit Varro in _Primo de Origine
Linguae Latinae_ his verbis: Ut Ion scribit, quinquavicesima est
littera, quam vocant “_agma_,” cujus forma nulla est et vox communis
est Graecis et Latinis, ut his verbis: _aggulus_, _aggens_,
_agguilla_, _iggerunt_. In ejusmodi Graeci et Accius noster bina +g+
scribunt, alii +n+ et +g+, quod in hoc veritatem videre facile non
est.
This custom did not, however, prevail among the Romans, and Marius
Victorinus gives it as his opinion that it is better to use +n+ than
+g+, as more correct to the ear, and avoiding ambiguity (the +gg+ being
then left for the natural expression of double +g+).
[Mar. Vict. I. iii. 70.] Familiarior est auribus nostris +n+ potius
quam +g+, ut _anceps_ et _ancilla_ et _anguia_ et _angustum_ et
_anquirit_ et _ancora_, et similia, per +n+ potius quam per +g+
scribite: sicut per duo +g+ quotiens duorum +g+ sonum aures exigent,
ut _aggerem_, _suggillat_, _suggerendum_, _suggestum_, et similia.
+N+ before +f+ or +s+ seems to have become a mere nasal, lengthening the
preceding vowel.
Cicero speaks of this as justified by the ear and by custom, rather than
by reason:
[Cic. Or. XLVIII.] Quid vero hoc elegantius, quod non fit natura,
sed quodam institute? _indoctus_ dicimus brevi prima littera,
_insanis_ producta: _inhumanus_ brevi, _infelix_ longa: et, ne
multis, quibus in verbis eae primae litterae sunt quae in _sapiente_
atque _felice_, producte dicitur; in ceteris omnibus breviter:
itemque _composuit_, _consuevit_, _concrepit_, _confecit_. Consule
veritatem, reprehendet; refer ad aures, probabunt. Quaere, cur? Ita
se dicent juvari. Voluptati autem aurium morigerari debet oratio.
In Donatus we have the same fact stated, with the same reason:
[Keil. v. IV. p. 442.] Quod magis aurium indicio quam artis ratione
colligimus.
Thus we find numeral adverbs and others ending either in _iens_ or
_ies_, as _centiens_ or _centies_, _decies_ or _deciens_, _millies_ or
_milliens_, _quotiens_ or _quoties_, _totiens_ or _toties_. Other words,
in like manner, participles and nouns, are written either with or
without the +n+ before +s+, as _contunsum_ or _contusum_, _obtunsus_ or
_obtusus_, _thesaurus_ or _thensaurus_ (the _ens_ is regularly
represented in Greek by ης); _infans_ or _infas_, _frons_ or _fros_. In
late Latin the +n+ was frequently dropped in participle endings.
Donatus says that this nasal sound of +n+ should be strenuously
observed:
[Keil. v. IV. p. 442.] Illud vehementissime observare debemus, ut
_con_ et _in_ quotiensque post se habent +s+ vel +f+ litteram,
videamus quemadmodum pronuntientur. Plerumque enim non observantes
in barbarismos incurrimus.
+Gn+ in the terminations _gnus_, _gna_, _gnum_, has, according to
Priscian, the power to lengthen the penultimate vowel.
[Prisc. I.] _Gnus_ quoque, vel _gna_, vel _gnum_, terminantia,
longam habent vocalem penultimam; ut a _regno_, _regnum_; a _sto_,
_stagnum_; a _bene_, _benignus_; a _male_, _malignus_; ab _abiete_,
_abiegnus_; _privignus_; _Pelignus_.
(Perhaps the liquid sound, as in _cañon_.)
+P+ is pronounced as in English.
[Mar. Vict. Keil. v. VI. p. 32.] +E+ quibus +b+ et +p+ litterae
. . . dispari inter se oris officio exprimuntur. Nam prima exploso e
mediis labiis sono; sequens, compresso ore, velut introrsum attracto
vocis ictu, explicatur.
+Q+ has the sound of English +q+ in the words _quire_, _quick_.
Priscian says:
[Keil. v. II. p. 12.] +K+ enim et +q+, quamvis figura et nomine
videantur aliquam habere differentiam, cum +c+ tamen eandem, tam in
sono vocum, quam in metro, potestatem continent.
And again:
[Id. ib. p. 36.] De +q+ quoque sufficienter supra tractatum est,
quae nisi eandem vim haberet quam +c+.
Marius Victorinus says:
[Keil. v. VI. p. 5.] Item superfluas quasdam videntur retinere,
+x+ et +k+ et +q+ . . . Pro +k+ et +q+, +c+ littera facillime
haberetur; +x+ autem per +c+ et +s+.
And again:
[Id. ib. p. 32.] +K+ et +q+ supervacue numero litterarum inseri
doctorum plerique contendunt, scilicet quod +c+ littera harum
officium possit implere.
The grammarians tell us that +k+ and +q+ are always found at the
beginning of a syllable:
[Prise. Keil. v. III. p. 111.] +Q+ et +k+ semper initio syllabarum
ponuntur.
They say also that the use of +q+ was more free among the earlier
Romans, who placed it as initial wherever +u+ followed,--as they placed
+k+ wherever +ă+ followed,--but that in the later, established, usage,
its presence was conditioned upon a vowel after the +u+ in the same
syllable:
[Donat. Keil. v. IV. p. 442.] Namque illi +q+ praeponebant quotiens
+u+ sequebatur, ut _quum_; nos vero non possumus +q+ praeponere nisi
ut +u+ sequatur et post ipsam alia vocalis, ut _quoniam_.
Diomedes says:
[Keil. v. I. p. 425.] +Q+ consonans muta, ex +c+ et +u+ litteris
composita, supervacua, qua utimur quando +u+ et altera vocalis in
una syllaba junguntur, ut _Quirinus_.
+R+ is trilled, as in Italian or French:
[Mar. Vict. Keil. v. VI. p. 32.] Sequetur +r+, quae, vibratione
vocis in palato linguae fastigio, fragorem tremulis ictibus reddit.
(This proper trilling of the +r+ is most important.)
+S+ seems to have had, almost, if not quite, invariably the sharp sound
of the English +s+ in _sing_, _hiss_.
In Greek words written also with +z+, as _Smyrna_ (also written
_Zmyrna_), it probably had the +z+ sound, and possibly in a few Latin
words, as _rosa_, _miser_, but this is not certain.
Marius Victorinus thus sets forth the difference between +s+ and
+x+ (cs):
[Keil. v. VI. p. 32.] Dehinc duae supremae, +s+ et +x+, jure
junguntur. Nam vicino inter se sonore attracto sibilant rictu, ita
tamen si prioris ictus pone dentes excitatus ad medium lenis
agitetur, sequentis autem crasso spiritu hispidum sonet, quia per
conjunctionem +c+ et +s+, quarum et locum implet et vim exprimit, ut
sensu aurium ducemur, efficitur.
Donatus, according to Pompeius, complains of the Greeks as sounding the
+s+ too feebly:
[Keil. v. V. p. 394.] Item +s+ litteram Graeci exiliter ecferunt
adeo ut cum dicunt _jussit_ per unum +s+ dicere existimas.
This would indicate that the Romans pronounced the sibilant
distinctly,--yet not too emphatically, for Quintilian says, ‘the master
of his art (of speaking) will not fondly prolong or dally with his +s+’:
[Quint. I. xi. 6.] Ne illas quidem circa +s+ litteram delicias hic
magister feret.
+T+ is pronounced like the English +t+ pure, except that the tongue
should approach the teeth more nearly.
[Pompei. _Comm. ad Donat._ Keil. v. VI. p. 32.] +D+ autem et +t+,
quibus, ut ita dixerim, vocis vicinitas quaedam est, linguae
sublatione ac positione distinguuntur. Nam cum summos atque imos
conjunctim dentes suprema sua parte pulsaverit +d+ litteram
exprimit. Quotiens autem sublimata partem qua superis dentibus est
_origo_ contigerit, +t+ sonore vocis explicabit.
From the same writer we learn that some pronounced the +t+ too heavily,
giving it a ‘thick sound’:
[Keil. v. V. p. 394.] Ecce in littera +t+ aliqui ita pingue nescio
quid sonant, ut cum dicunt _etiam_ nihil de media syllaba
infringant.
By which we understand that the +t+ was wrongly uttered with a kind of
effort, such as prevented its gliding on to the +i+.
+Th+ nearly as in _then_, not as in _thin_.
+U+ (consonant) or +V+.
That the letter +u+ performed the office of both vowel and consonant all
the grammarians agree, and state the fact in nearly the same terms.
Priscian says that they (+i+ and +u+) seem quite other letters when used
as consonants, and that it makes a great difference in which of these
ways they are used:
[Keil. v. II. p. 13.] Videntur tamen +i+ et +u+ cum in consonantes
transeunt quantum ad potestatem, quod maximum est in elementis,
aliae litterae esse praeter supra dictis; multum enim interest utrum
vocales sint an consonantes.
The grammarians also state that this consonant +u+ was represented by
the Greek digamma, which the Romans called _vau_ also.
Marius Victorinus says:
[I. iii. 44.] Nam littera +u+ vocalis est, sicut +a+, +e+, +i+, +o+,
sed eadem vicem obtinet consonantis: cujus potestatis notam Graeci
habent ϝ, nostri _vau_ vocant, et alii _digamma_; ea per se scripta
non facit syllabam, anteposita autem vocali facit, ut ϝάμαξα,
ϝεκήβολος et ϝελήνη. Nos vero, qui non habemus hujus vocis nomen aut
notam, in ejus locum quotiens una vocalis pluresve junctae unam
syllabam faciunt, substituimus +u+ litteram.
Now it is contended by some that this _digamma_, or _vau_, was merely
taken as a symbol, somewhat arbitrarily perhaps, and that it did not
indicate a particular sound, but might stand for anything which the
Romans chose to represent by it; and that therefore it gives us no
certain indication of what the Latin +u+ consonant was.
But we are expressly told that it had the force and sound of the Greek
_digamma_.
In Marius Victorinus we find:
[Keil. v. VI. p. 23.] F autem apud Aeolis dumtaxat idem valere quod
apud nos _vau_ cum pro consonante scribitur, vocarique βαυ et
_digamma_.
Priscian explains more fully:
[Keil. v. II. p. 15.] +U+ vero loco consonantis posita eandem
prorsus in omnibus vim habuit apud Latinos quam apud Aeolis
_digamma_. Unde a plerisque ei nomen hoc datur quod apud Aeolis
habuit olim ϝ _digamma_, id est _vau_, ab ipsius voce profectum
teste Varrone et Didymo, qui id ei nomen esse ostendunt. Pro quo
Caesar hanc [ϝ] figuram scribi voluit, quod quamvis illi recte visum
est tamen consuetudo antiqua superavit. Adeo autem hoc verum est
quod pro Aeolico _digamma_ ϝ +u+ ponitur.
What then was the sound of this Aeolic _digamma_ or βαυ?
Priscian says:
[Keil. v. II. p. 11.] ϝ Aeolicum _digamma_, quod apud antiquissimos
Latinorum eandem vim quam apud Aeolis habuit. Eum autem prope sonum
quem nunc habet significabat +p+ cum aspiratione, sicut etiam apud
veteres Graecos pro φ π et Ͱ; unde nunc quoque in Graecis nominibus
antiquam scripturam servamus, pro φ +p+ et +h+ ponentes, ut
_Orpheus_, _Phaethon_. Postea vero in Latinis verbis placuit pro p
et h, f scribi, ut fama, filius, facio, loco autem _digamma_ +u+ pro
consonante, quod cognatione soni videbatur affinis esse _digamma_ ea
littera.
The Latin +u+ consonant is here distinctly stated to be akin to the
Greek _digamma_ (ϝ) in sound.
Now the office of the Greek _digamma_ was apparently manifold. It stood
for ς, β (Eng. +v+), γ, χ, φ, and for the breathings ‘rough’ and
‘smooth.’ Sometimes the sound of the _digamma_ is given, we are told,
where the character itself is not written. It is said that in the
neighborhood of Olympia it is to-day pronounced, though not written,
between two vowels as β (Eng. +v+). Which of these various sounds should
be given the digamma appears to have been determined by the law of
euphony. It was sometimes written but not sounded (like our +h+).
The question then is, which of these various sounds of the digamma is
represented by the Latin +u+ consonant, or does it represent all, or
none, of these.
Speaking of +f+, Priscian says:
[Keil. v. II. p. 35.] Antiqui Romanorum Aeolis sequentes loco
aspirationis eam (+f+) ponebant, effugientes ipsi quoque
aspirationem, et maxime cum consonante recusabant eam proferre in
Latino sermone. Habebat autem haec +f+ littera hunc sonum quem nunc
habet +u+ loco consonantis posita, unde antiqui +af+ pro +ab+
scribere solebant; sed quia non potest _vau_, id est _digamma_, in
fine syllabae inveniri, ideo mutata in +b+. _Sifilum_ quoque pro
_sibilum_ teste Nonio Marcello _de Doctorum Indagine_ dicebant.
And again:
[Prisc. Keil. v. II. p. 15.] In +b+ etiam solet apud Aeolis transire
ϝ _digamma_ quotiens ab ρ incipit dictio quae solet aspirari, ut
ῥήτωρ, βρήτωρ dicunt, quod _digamma_ nisi vocali praeponi et in
principio syllabae non potest. Ideo autem locum transmutavit, quia
+b+ vel _digamma_ post ρ in eadem syllaba pronuntiari non potest.
Apud nos quoque est invenire quod pro +u+ consonante +b+ ponitur, ut
_caelebs_, caelestium vitam ducens, per +b+ scribitur, quod +u+
consonans ante consonantem poni non potest. Sed etiam _Bruges_ et
_Belena_ antiquissimi dicebant, teste Quintiliano, qui hoc ostendit
in primo _institutionum oratoriarum_: nec mirum, cum +b+ quoque in
+u+ euphoniae causa converti invenimus; ut _aufero_.
[Quint. I. v. 69.] Frequenter autem praepositiones quoque copulatio
ista corrumpit; inde _abstulit_, _aufugit_, _amisit_, cum
praepositio sit +ab+ sola.
It is significant here that Cicero speaks of the change from +du+ to +b+
as a contraction. He says:
[Cic. Or. LXV.] Quid vero licentius quam quod hominum etiam nomina
contrahebant, quo essent aptiora? Nam ut _duellum_, _bellum_; et
_duis_, _bis_; sic _Duellium_ eum qui Poenos classe devicit
_Bellium_ nominaverunt, cum superiores appellati essent semper
_Duellii_.
One cannot but feel in reading the numerous passages in the grammarians
that treat of the sound of +u+ consonant, that if its sound had been no
other than the natural sound of +u+ with consonantal force, they never
would have spent so much time and labor in explaining and elucidating
it. Why did they not turn it off with the simple explanation which they
give to the consonantal +i+--that of double +i+? What more natural than
to speak of consonant +u+ as “double +u+” (as we English do +w+). But on
the contrary they expressly declare it to have a sound distinct and
peculiar. Quintilian says that even if the form of the Aeolic _digamma_
is rejected by the Romans, yet its force pursues them:
[Quint. XII. x. 29.] Aeolicae quoque litterae qua _servum cervum_que
dicimus, etiamsi forma a nobis repudiata est, vis tamen nos ipsa
persequitur.
He gives it as his opinion that it would have been well to have adopted
the _vau_, and says that neither by the old way of writing (by +uo+),
nor by the modern way (by +uu+), is at all produced the sound which we
perceive:
[Quint. I. vii. 26.] Nunc +u+ gemina scribuntur (_servus_ et
_cervus_) ea ratione quam reddidi: neutro sane modo vox quam
sentimus efficitur. Nec inutiliter Claudius Aeolicam illam ad hos
usus litteram adjecerat.
And again still more distinctly:
[Id. ib. iv. 7, 8.] At grammatici saltem omnes in hanc descendent
rerum tenuitatem, desintne aliquae nobis necessariae literarum, non
cum Graeca scribimus (tum enim ab iisdem duas mutuamur) sed
propriae, in Latinis, ut in his _seruus_ et _uulgus_ Aeolicum
digammon desideratur.
This need of a new symbol, recognized by authorities like Cicero and
Quintilian, is not an insignificant point in the argument.
Marius Victorinus says that Cicero adds +u+ (consonant) to the other
five consonants that are understood to assimilate certain other
consonants coming before them:
[Mar. Vict. I. iv. 64.] Sed propriae sunt cognatae (consonantes)
quae simili figuratione oris dicuntur, ut est +b+, +f+, +r+, +m+,
+p+, quibus Cicero adjicit +u+, non eam quae accipitur pro vocali,
sed eam quae consonantis obtinet vicem, et interposita vocali fit ut
aliae quoque consonantes.
He proceeds to illustrate with the proposition +ob+:
[Id. ib. 67.] +Ob+ autem mutatur in cognatas easdem, ut _offert_,
_officit_; et _ommovet_, _ommutescit_; et _oppandit_, _opperitur_;
_ovvertit_, _ovvius_.
Let any one, keeping in mind the distinctness with which the Romans
uttered doubled consonants, attempt to pronounce _ovvius_ on the theory
of consonant +u+ like English (+w+) (!).
By the advocates of the +w+ sound of the +v+ much stress is laid upon
the fact that the poets occasionally change the consonant into the vowel
+u+, and _vice versa_; as Horace, Epode VIII. 2:
“Nivesque deducunt Jovem, nunc mare nunc siluæ̈;”
Or Lucretius, in II. 232:
“Propterea quia corpus aquae naturaque tenvis.”
Such single instances suggest, indeed, a common origin in the +u+ and
+v+, and a poet’s license, archaistic perhaps; but no more determine the
ordinary value of the letter than, say, in the English poets the rhyming
of wĭnd with mīnd, or the making a distinct syllable of the _ed_ in
participle endings.
Another argument used in support of the +w+ sound is taken from the
words of Nigidius Figulus.
He was contending, we are told, that words and names come into being not
by chance, or arbitrarily, but by nature; and he takes, among other
examples, the words _vos_ and _nos_, _tu_ and _ego_, _tibi_ and _mihi_:
[Aul. Gell. X. iv. 4.] _Vos_, inquit, cum dicimus motu quodam oris
conveniente cum ipsius verbi demonstratione utimur, et labias sensim
primores emovemus, ac spiritum atque animam porro versum et ad eos
quibuscum sermonicamur intendimus. At contra cum dicimus _nos_ neque
profuso intentoque flatu vocis, neque projectis labiis pronunciamus;
sed et spiritum et labias quasi intra nosmetipsos coercemus. Hoc
idem fit et in eo quod dicimus _tu_ et _ego_; et _tibi_ et _mihi_.
Nam sicuti cum adnuimus et abnuimus, motus quidem ille vel capitis
vel oculorum a natura rei quam significabat non abhorret; ita in his
vocibus, quasi gestus quidam oris et spiritus naturalis est.
But a little careful examination will show that this passage favors the
other side rather.
The first part of the description: “labias sensim primores emovemus,”
will apply to either sound, _vos_ or _wos_, although better, as will
appear upon consulting the mirror, to _vos_ than to _wos_; but the
second: “ac spiritum atque animam porro versum et ad eos quibuscum
sermonicamur intendimus,” will certainly apply far better to _vos_ than
to _wos_. In _wos_ we get the “projectis labiis” to some extent,
although not so marked as in _vos_; but we do not get anything like the
same “profuso intentoque flatu vocis” as in _vos_.
The same may be said of the argument drawn from the anecdote related by
Cicero in his _de Divinatione_:
[Cic. de Div. XL. 84.] Cum M. Crassus exercitum Brundisii imponeret,
quidam in portu caricas Cauno advectas vendens “Cauneas!”
clamitabat. Dicamus, si placet, monitum ab eo Crassum _caveret ne
iret_, non fuisse periturum si omini paruisset.
Now when we remember that Caunos, whence these particular figs came, was
a Greek town; that the fig-seller was very likely a Greek himself
(Brundisium being a Greek port so to speak), but at any rate probably
pronounced the name as it was doubtless always heard; and that +u+ in
such a connection is at present pronounced like our +f+ or +v+, and we
know of no time when it was pronounced like our +u+, it is difficult to
avoid the conclusion that the fig-seller was crying “Cafneas!”--a sound
far more suggestive of _Cave-ne-eas!_ than “_Cauneas!_” of _Cawe ne
eas!_
But beyond the testimony, direct and indirect, of grammarians and
classic writers, an argument against the +w+ sound appears in the fact
that this sound is not found in Greek (from which the _vau_ is
borrowed), nor in Italian or kindred Romance languages.
The initial +u+ in Italian represents not Latin +u+ consonant, but some
other letter, as +h+, in _uomo_ (for _homo_). On the other hand we find
the +v+ sound, as _vedova_ (from _vidua_),--notice the two +v+
sounds,--or the +u+ sometimes changed to +b+, as _serbare_ from
_servare_; _bibita_ and _bevanda_, both from _bibo_.
In French we find the Latin +u+ consonant passing into +f+, as _ovum_
into _œuf_; _novem_ into _neuf_.
It seems not improbable that in Cicero’s time and later the consonant
+u+ represented some variation of sound, that its value varied in the
direction of +b+ or +f+, and possibly, in some Greek words especially,
it was more vocalized, as in _vae!_ (Greek ουάι). Yet here it is worthy
of note that the corresponding words in Italian are not written with +u+
but with _gu_, as _guai!_
In considering the sound of Latin _u_ consonant we must always keep in
mind that the question is one of time,--not, was _u_ ever pronounced as
English _w_; but, was it so pronounced in the time of Cicero and Virgil.
Professor Ellis well says: “Any one who wishes to arrive at a conclusion
respecting the Latin consonantal u must learn to pronounce and
distinguish readily the four series of sounds: +ŭa ŭe ŭi ŭo+, +wa we wi
wo wu+, +v’a v’e v’i v’o v’u+, +va ve vi vo vu+.”
Now the question is: At what point along this line do we find the +u+
consonant of the golden age? Roby, though not agreeing with Ellis in
rejecting the English +w+ sound, as the representative of that period,
declares himself “quite content to think that a labial +v+ was
provincially contemporary and in the end generally superseded it.”
But ‘provincialisms’ do not seem sufficient to account for the use of β
for +u+ consonant in inscriptions and in writers of the first century.
For instance, _Nerva_ and _Severus_ in contemporary inscriptions are
written both with ου and with β: Νέρουα, Νέρβα; Σεουῆρος, Σεβῆρος. And
in Plutarch we find numerous instances of β taking the place of ου.
It is true that the instances in which we find β taking the place of ου
in the first century, and earlier, are decidedly in the minority, but
when we recollect that ου was the original and natural representative of
the Latin +u+, the fact that a change was made at all is of great
weight, and one instance of β for +u+ would outweigh a dozen instances
of the old form, +ou+. That the letter should be changed in the Greek,
even when it had not been in the Latin, seems to make it certain that
the ‘Greek ear,’ at least, had detected a real variation of sound from
the original +u+, and one that approached, at least, their β (Eng. +v+).
Nor, in this connection, should we fail to notice the words in Latin
where +u+ consonant is represented by +b+, such as _bubile_ from
_bovile_, _defervi_ and _deferbui_ from _deferveo_.
In concluding the argument for the labial +v+ sound of consonantal +u+,
it may be proper to suggest a fact which should have no weight against a
conclusive argument on the other side, but which might, perhaps, be
allowed to turn the scale nicely balanced. The +w+ sound is not only
unfamiliar but nearly, if not quite, impossible, to the lips of any
European people except the English, and would therefore of necessity
have to be left out of any universally adopted scheme of Latin
pronunciation. Professor Ellis pertinently says: “As a matter of
practical convenience English speakers should abstain from +w+ in Latin,
because no Continental nation can adopt a sound they cannot pronounce.”
+X+ has the same sound as in English.
Marius Victorinus says:
[Keil. t. VI. p. 32.] Dehinc duae supremae +s+ et +x+ jure
jungentur, nam vicino inter se sonore attracto sibilant rictu, ita
tamen si prioris ictus pone dentes excitatus ad medium lenis
agitetur; sequentis autem crasso spiritu hispidum sonet qui per
conjunctionem +c+ et +s+, quarum et locum implet et vim exprimit, ut
sensu aurium ducamur efficitur.
Again:
[Id. ib. p. 5.] +X+ autem per +c+ et +s+ possemus scribere.
And:
Posteaquam a Graecis ξ, et a nobis +x+, recepta est, abiit et
illorum et nostra perplexa ratio, et in primis observatio Nigidii,
qui in libris suis +x+ littera non est usus, antiquitatem sequens.
+X+ suffers a long vowel before it, being composed of the +c+ (the only
mute that allows a long vowel before it) and the +s+.
+Z+ probably had a sound akin to +ds+ in English. After giving the sound
of +x+ as +cs+, Marius Victorinus goes on to speak of +z+ thus:
[Keil. v. VI. p. 5.] Sic et +z+, si modo latino sermoni necessaria
esset, per +d+ et +s+ litteras faceremus.
QUANTITY.
A syllable in Latin may consist of from one to six letters, as _a_,
_ab_, _ars_, _Mars_, _stans_, _stirps_.
In dividing into syllables, a consonant between two vowels belongs to
the vowel following it. When there are two consonants, the first goes
with the vowel before, the second with the vowel after, unless the
consonants form such a combination as may stand at the beginning of a
word (Latin or Greek), that is, as may be uttered with a single impulse,
as one letter; in which case they go, as one, with the vowel following.
An apparent exception is made in the case of compound words. These are
divided into their component parts when these parts remain intact.
On these points Priscian says:
Si antecedens syllaba terminat in consonantem necesse est et
sequentem a consonante incipere; ut _artus_, _ille_, _arduus_; nisi
fit compositum: ut _abeo_, _adeo_, _pereo_.
Nam in simplicibus dictionibus necesse est +s+ et +c+ ejusdem esse
syllabae, ut _pascua_, _luscus_.
+M+ quoque, vel +p+, vel +t+, in simplicibus dictionibus, si
antecedat +s+, ejusdem est syllabae, ut _cosmos_, _perspirare_,
_testis_.
In semivocalibus similiter sunt praepositivae aliis semivocalibus in
eadem syllaba; ut +m+ sequente +n+, ut _Mnesteus_, _amnis_.
Each letter has its ‘time,’ or ‘times.’ Thus a short vowel has the time
of one beat (_mora_); a long vowel, of two beats; a single consonant, of
a half beat; a double consonant, of one beat. Theoretically, therefore,
a syllable may have as many as three, or even four, _tempora_; but
practically only two are recognized. All over two are disregarded and
each syllable is simply counted ‘short’ (one beat) or ‘long’ (two
beats).
Priscian says:
[Keil. v. II. p. 52.] In longis natura vel positione duo sunt
tempora, ut _do_, _ars_; duo semis, quando post vocalem natura
longam una sequitur consonans, ut _sol_; tria, quando post vocalem
natura longam duae consonantes sequuntur, vel una duplex, ut _mons_,
_rex_. Tamen in metro necesse est unamquamque syllabam vel unius vel
duorum accipi temporum.
ACCENT.
The grammarians tell us that every syllable has three dimensions,
length, breadth and height, or _tenor_, _spiritus_, _tempus_:
[Keil. Supp. p. XVIII.] Habet etiam unaquaeque syllaba altitudinem,
latitudinem et longitudinem; altitudinem in tenore; crassitudinem
vel latitudinem, in spiritu; longitudinem in tempore.
Diomedes says:
[Keil. v. I. p. 430.] Accentus est dictus ab accinendo, quod sit
quasi quidam cujusque syllabae cantus.
And Cicero:
[Cic. Or. XVIII.] Ipsa enim natura, quasi modularetur hominem
orationem, in omni verbo posuit acutam vocem, nec una plus, nec a
postrema syllaba citra tertiam.
The grammarians recognize three accents; but practically we need take
account of but two, inasmuch as the third is merely negative. The
syllable having the grave accent is, as we should say, unaccented.
[Diom. Keil. v. I. p. 430.] Sunt vero tres, acutus, gravis, et qui
ex duobus constat circumflexus. Ex his, acutus in correptis semper,
interdum productis syllabis versatur; inflexus (or ‘circumflexus’),
in his quae producuntur; gravis autem per se nunquam consistere in
ullo verbo potest, sed in his in quibus inflexus est, aut acutus
ceteras syllabas obtinet.
The same writer thus gives the place of each accent:
[Keil. v. I. p. 431.] (Acutus) apud Latinos duo tantum loca tenent,
paenultimum et antepaenultimum; circumflexus autem, quotlibet
syllabarum sit dictio, non tenebit nisi paenultimum locum. Omnis
igitur pars orationis hanc rationem pronuntiationis detinet. Omnis
vox monosyllaba aliquid significans, si brevis est, acuetur, ut
_ab_, _mel_, _fel_; et, si positione longa fuerit, acutum similiter
tenorem habebit, ut _ars_, _pars_, _pix_, _nix_, _fax_. Sin autem
longa natura fuerit, flectetur, ut _lux_, _spes_, _flos_, _sol_,
_mons_, _fons_, _lis_.
Omnis vox dissyllaba priorem syllabam aut acuit aut flectit. Acuit,
vel cum brevis est utraque, ut _deus_, _citus_, _datur_, _arat_; vel
cum positione longa est utraque, ut _sollers_; vel alterutra
positione longa dum ne natura longa sit, prior, ut _pontus_;
posterior, ut _cohors_. Si vero prior syllaba natura longa et
sequens brevis fuerit, flectitur prior, ut _luna_, _Roma_.
In trisyllabis autem et tetrasyllabis et deinceps, secunda ab ultima
semper observanda est. Haec, si natura longa fuerit, inflectitur, ut
_Romanus_, _Cethegus_, _marinus_, _Crispinus_, _amicus_, _Sabinus_,
_Quirinus_, _lectica_. Si vero eadem paenultima positione longa
fuerit, acuetur, ut _Metellus_, _Catullus_, _Marcellus_; ita tamen
si positione longa non ex muta et liquida fuerit. Nam mutabit
accentum, ut _latebrae_, _tenebrae_. Et si novissima natura longa
itemque paenultima, sive natura sive positione longa fuerit,
paenultima tantum acuetur, non inflectetur; sic, natura, ut
_Fidenae_, _Athenae_, _Thebae_, _Cymae_; positione, ut _tabellae_,
_fenestrae_. Sin autem media et novissima breves fuerint, prima
servabit acutum tenorem, ut _Sergius_, _Mallius_, _ascia_,
_fuscina_, _Julius_, _Claudius_. Si omnes tres syllabae longae
fuerint, media acuetur, ut _Romani_, _legati_, _praetores_,
_praedones_.
Priscian thus defines the accents:
[Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est
quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut
deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.
Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing
influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:
[Keil. v. III. pp. 519-521.] Tres quidem res accentuum regulas
conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi ambiguitas; atque
necessitas. . . .
Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis
pronuntians dicat _poné_ et _ergó_, quod apud Latinos in ultima
syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est
quod diximus _poné_ et _ergó_. Ideo _poné_ dicimus ne putetur verbum
esse imperativi modi, hoc est _pōne_; _ergó_ ideo dicimus ne putetur
conjunctio rationalis, quod est _érgo_.
Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis
dicat _interealoci_, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat _interea_,
alteram _loci_, quod non separatim sed sub uno accentu pronuntiandum
est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.
Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat
in primis _doctus_, addat _que_ conjunctionem, dicatque _doctusque_,
ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in secunda syllaba,
sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.
He also states the law that determines the kind of accent to be used:
[Id. ib. p. 521.] Syllaba quae correptam vocalem habet acuto accentu
pronuntiatur, ut _páx_, _fáx_, _píx_, _níx_, _dúx_, _núx_, quae
etiam tali accentu pronuntianda est, quamvis sit longa positione,
quia naturaliter brevis est. Quae vero naturaliter producta est
circumflexo accentu exprimenda est ut, _rês_, _dôs_, _spês_.
Dissyllabae vero quae priorem productam habent et posteriorem
correptam, priorem syllabam circumflectunt, ut _mêta_, _Crêta_.
Illae vero quae sunt ambae longae vel prior brevis et ulterior longa
acuto accento pronuntiandae sunt, ut _népos_, _léges_, _réges_. Hae
vero quae sunt ambae breves similiter acuto accentu proferuntur, ut
_bonus_, _melos_. Sed notandum quod si prior sit longa positione non
circumflexo, sed acuto, accentu pronuntianda est, ut _arma_,
_arcus_, quae, quamvis sit longa positione, tamen exprimenda est
tali accentu quia non est naturalis.
Trisyllabae namque et tetrasyllabae sive deinceps, si paenultimam
correptam habuerint, antepaenultimam acuto accentu proferunt, ut
_Túllius_, _Hostílius_. Nam paenultima, si positione longa fuerit,
acuetur, antepaenultima vero gravabitur, ut _Catúllus_, _Metéllus_.
Si vero ex muta et liquida longa in versu esse constat, in oratione
quoque accentum mutat, ut _latébrae_, _tenébrae_. Syllaba vero
ultima, si brevis sit et paenultimam naturaliter longam habuerit
ipsam paenultimam circumflectit, ut _Cethêgus_, _perôsus_. Ultima
quoque, si naturaliter longa fuerit, paenultimam acuet, ut
_Athénae_, _Mycénae_. Ad hanc autem rem arsis et thesis necessariae.
Nam in unaquaque parte oratione arsis et thesis sunt, non in ordine
syllabarum, sed in pronuntiatione: velut in hac parte _natura_, ut
quando dico _natu_ elevatur vox, et est arsis intus; quando vero
sequitur _ra_ vox deponitur, et est thesis deforis. Quantum autem
suspenditur vox per arsin tantum deprimitur per thesin. Sed ipsa vox
quae per dictiones formatur donec accentus perficiatur in arsin
deputatur, quae autem post accentum sequitur in thesin.
In the matter of exceptions to the rule that accent does not fall on the
ultimate, we find a somewhat wide divergence of opinion among the
grammarians. Some of them give numerous exceptions, particularly in the
distinguishing of parts of speech, as, for instance, between the same
word used as adverb or preposition, as _ánte_ and _anté_; or between the
same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as _réges_ and _regés_; and
in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as _finīt_ (for _finivit_).
But since on this point the grammarians do not agree among themselves,
either as to number or class of exceptions, or even as to the manner of
making them, we may treat this matter as of no great importance (as in
English, we please ourselves in saying _pérfect_ or _perféct_). And here
it may be said that due attention to the quantity will of itself often
regulate the accent in doubtful cases; as when we say _doce_, if we duly
shorten the +o+ and lengthen the +e+ the effect will be correct, whether
the ear of the grammarian detect accent on the final syllable, or not.
For as Quintilian well says:
Nam ut color oculorum indicio, sapor palati, odor narium dinoscitur,
ita sonus aurium arbitrio subjectus est.
PITCH.
But besides the length of the syllable, and the place and quality of the
accent, another matter claims attention.
In English all that is required is to know the place of the accent,
which is simply distinguished by greater stress of voice. This
peculiarity of our language makes it more difficult for us than for
other peoples to get the Latin accent, which is one of pitch.
In Latin the acute accent means that on the syllable thus accented you
raise the pitch; the grave indicates merely the lower tone; the
circumflex, that the voice is first raised, then depressed, on the same
syllable. To quote again the passage from Priscian:
[Keil. v. III. p. 519.] Acutus namque accentus ideo inventus est
quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod deprimat aut
deponet; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.
In conclusion of this part of the work the following anecdotes from
Aulus Gellius are given, as serving to show that to the rules of classic
Roman pronunciation there were exceptions, apparently more or less
arbitrary, some--perhaps many--of which we may not now hope to discover;
and as serving still more usefully to show, by the stress laid upon
points of comparative insignificance, that exceptions were rare, such as
even scholars could afford to disagree upon, and not such as to affect
the general tenor of the language. So that we are encouraged to believe
that, as the English language may be well and even elegantly spoken by
those whose speech still includes scores, if not hundreds, of variations
in pronunciation, in sounds of letters or in accent, so we may hope to
pronounce the Latin with some good degree of satisfaction, whether, for
instance, we say _quiêsco_ or _quiésco_, _ăctito_ or _āctito_:
[Aul. Gell. VI. xv.] Amicus noster, homo multi studii atque in
bonarum disciplinarum opere frequens, verbum _quiescit_ usitate +e+
littera correpta dixit. Alter item amicus homo in doctrinis, quasi
in praestigiis, mirificus, communiumque vocum respuens nimis et
fastidiens, barbare eum dixisse opinatus est; quoniam producere
debuisset, non corripere. Nam _quiescit_ ita oportere dici
praedicavit, ut _calescit_, _nitescit_, _stupescit_, atque alia
hujuscemodi multa. Id etiam addebat, quod _quies_ +e+ producto, non
brevi, diceretur. Noster autem, qua est omnium rerum verecunda
mediocritate, ne si Aelii quidem Cincii et Santrae dicendum ita
censuissent obsecuturum sese fuisse ait, contra perpetuam Latinae
linguae consuetudinem. Neque se tam insignite locuturum, absona aut
inaudita ut diceret. Litteras autem super hac re fecit, item inter
haec exercitia quaedam ludicra; et _quiesco_ non esse his simile
quae supra posui, nec a _quiete_ dictum, sed ab eo _quietem_;
Graecaeque vocis ἔσχον καὶ ἔσκον, Ionice a verbo ἔσχω ἴσχω, et modum
et originem verbum illud habere demonstravit. Rationibusque haud
sane frigidis docuit _quiesco_ +e+ littera longa dici non convenire.
[Aul. Gell. IX. vi.] Ab eo, quod est _ago_ et _egi_, verba sunt quae
appellant grammatici frequentativa, _actito_ et _actitavi_. Haec quosdam
non sane indoctos viros audio ita pronuntiare ut primam in his litteram
corripiant; rationemque dicant, quoniam in verbo principali, quod est
_ago_, prima littera breviter pronuntiatur. Cur igitur ab eo quod est
_edo_ et _ungo_, in quibus verbis prima littera breviter dicitur,
_esito_ et _unctito_, quae sunt eorum frequentativa prima littera longa
promimus? et contra, _dictito_, ab eo verbo quod est _dico_, correpte
dicimus? Num ergo potius _actito_ et _actitavi_ producenda sunt? quoniam
frequentativa ferme omnia eodem modo in prima syllaba dicuntur, quo
participia praeteriti temporis ex iis verbis unde ea profecta sunt in
eadem syllaba pronuntiantur; sicut _lego_, _lectus_, _lectito_ facit;
_ungo_, _unctus_, _unctito_; _scribo_, _scriptus_, _scriptito_; _moneo_,
_monitus_, _monito_; _pendeo_, _pensus_, _pensito_; _edo_, _esus_,
_esito_; _dico_, autem, _dictus_, _dictito_ facit; _gero_, _gestus_,
_gestito_; _veho_, _vectus_, _vectito_; _rapio_, _raptus_, _raptito_;
_capio_, _captus_, _captito_; _facio_, _factus_, _factito_. Sic igitur
_actito_ producte in prima syllaba pronuntiandum, quoniam ex eo fit quod
est _ago_ et _actus_.