How do you pronounce Latin?

[Ygorcs]

Also, during the actual period of the Republic and Empire I'm sure even the elites pronounced it differently as time went on depending on their region. Languages evolve, especially when there are other languages around.

Look at English as an example. It has been continually evolving. I had to read Beowulf and Chaucer in the original at university. Yes, it scanned better in the original, but it was almost like a foreign language.

By the 1800s, the pronounciation of English in the Americas was very different from what it was in England, even among elites. Australian English went its own way too.

Good point. People sometimes forget that Classical Latin was essentially the fossilized high-status dialect (or should we call it just sociolect?) of the elite of Rome as it was spoken roughly in the 100-50 BC period. There were surely differences in vocabulary, phonology and even grammar among Latin speakers by then, as the language had already spread to the entire Italian peninsula and even beyond it. This reconstructed pronunciation would be very close to what you'd hear in the speeches of Julius Caesar, but certainly very different from what you'd hear in the speeches of the last Western Roman emperors. By 400 AD for instance "v" as [w] probably had already turned into either [v] or a bilabial fricative like the Spanish "b", the final nasal vowels had already disappeared, and the vowel system of Latin had been profoundly altered (e.g. the distinction short vs. long vowel had probably started to consolidate as an open vs. closed vowel distinction).

When the Western Roman Empire fell, Classical Latin was a bit as if modern English speakers still wrote and at least tried to speak formally like Chaucer. In terms of spelling, that isn't even an absurd comparison, because in fact what English speakers read when they say e.g. English literature is very different from what the very same words would've been pronounced like 600 years ago - but the words are still written the same way nevertheless.

 

[Angela]

Good point. People sometimes forget that Classical Latin was essentially the fossilized high-status dialect (or should we call it just sociolect?) of the elite of Rome as it was spoken roughly in the 100-50 BC period. There were surely differences in vocabulary, phonology and even grammar among Latin speakers by then, as the language had already spread to the entire Italian peninsula and even beyond it. This reconstructed pronunciation would be very close to what you'd hear in the speeches of Julius Caesar, but certainly very different from what you'd hear in the speeches of the last Western Roman emperors. By 400 AD for instance "v" as [w] probably had already turned into either [v] or a bilabial fricative like the Spanish "b", the final nasal vowels had already disappeared, and the vowel system of Latin had been profoundly altered (e.g. the distinction short vs. long vowel had probably started to consolidate as an open vs. closed vowel distinction).

When the Western Roman Empire fell, Classical Latin was a bit as if modern English speakers still wrote and at least tried to speak formally like Chaucer. In terms of spelling, that isn't even an absurd comparison, because in fact what English speakers read when they say e.g. English literature is very different from what the very same words would've been pronounced like 600 years ago - but the words are still written the same way nevertheless.

That's exactly right. Shakespeare in the original is a bit better (easier to understand) than Chaucer in the original, but theaters around the world are not going to present it in that way.

Chaucer in the original: it's beautiful, and better as poetry because you can hear the rhymes and the meter, but....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0ybnLRf3gU

I don't see the point in trying to revive that as a language.

How nice you brought up Rosa Ponselle. One of my closest friends is a music teacher and privately gives voice lessons. Her greatest regret is that she never had a career as a professional opera singer. It's been wonderful sharing this music with someone so informed, especially after my father's death. It was he who introduced me to opera. He knew all the Italian operas by heart, and sang them to me when I was a fractious baby and toddler who didn't want to go to sleep. As she grew to know my tastes, she said to me: You would love Rosa Ponselle. She was right: I do.

In a way I know what your relatives mean about the Ave Maria. It has, to me, a very melancholy melody, but it doesn't frighten me; it soothes and comforts me, even now when I've parted ways with the Church. I suppose I and many of the people I know associate it with our mothers. Italians are very sentimental about their mothers. The devotion to the mother symbol, and the mother and child, is particularly strong in our "brand" of Catholicism, too, at least in the days when more people were believers. I know Mary was important in all Catholic countries, but I've always thought there were more Madonna and Child representations in Italian churches, and privately, for that matter, than anywhere else in the world. When I was a child and teen-ager and very devout, all my prayers were to Mary: the Ave Maria, Hail Holy Queen, the Memorare, the Magnificat. I know that's something Protestants don't understand, but that's the way it was. Mary wore my mother's face, but was more powerful. I suppose it helped that we also play it at all our weddings. While it plays, after Communion is served, the bride brings a bouquet of flowers, sometimes her own, to the feet of Mary's statue right to the side of the altar.

If sung well, the Ave Maria always makes me a little teary. Listening to Rosa Ponselle sing it left me really crying, but I loved it. Thank-you.

Btw, I'm consistent in my likes and dislikes. Although the performers don't have to be Italian, I always prefer an Italianate style: I love Jussi Bjorling, for example. I put it down to the fact that I grew up listening not only to Caruso, but to Beniamino Gigli.

 

[davef]

Who's this Chaucer guy? To the Google mobile!!

 

[martinmkp]

I believe in ancient Rome every part of society did talk its own dialect (pronunciation) of Latin, even in the same time and the same region. For example, high society of Roma did use its own pronunciation of Latin, different from merchants, midddle class, servants or other social classes. The pattern is the very same as in our societies.

Secondly, every language moves significantly even within two generations. Latin surely was no exception, so we need to clarify, what period of time do we think is "real" pronunciation. We can not simply say that "Original old Latin in the Empire did sound exactly as this"... because Latin around 0 or in the Third Centuryshould definitely sound differently. And there is even the question - would Cicero and Dioclecianus understand themselves fully?

Lastly, I believe, that especially French and nowadays English have been spoiling the original Latin pronunciation to extreme extent, although both based or strongly influenced on/by Latin ("higher" use of both languages) and this trend will continue further.

Real Latin education is becoming almost extinct (my grandfather learned Latin and Greek compulsory, I had Latin as a language of choice only, my children - they had no choice to choose Latin at secondary schools - no teachers). With American English prevailing in the world, there will be even stronger switch to something, which has been Latin in its core but will become something else. But, this is a normal evolution of languages, so why to preserve the (non existent) original...

 

[Sile]

Where on earth did you get that? It's completely and utterly incorrect. Standard Italian is predominantly based on the Florentine "dialect", as well as influences from other "dialects", all of which are descendants of "vulgar" Latin.

Your you tube video is also full of incorrect information in terms of reasons for the differences.

You really should pick up a book on the evolution of the Italian language written by linguists.

Or at least read the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Italy

http://www.dilit.it/en/doc/learn-Italian-language/italian_language_history_timeline.html

I said that Italian language came out of Vulgat latin regional italian languages and that italian language has lost/not gained the term vulgar latin.....it is exempt from this term.
Pietro Bembo and the others of his time ensured that the "Vulgar" part that Dante kept and worked on was removed and the Italian 'cleaned-up".
Linguist today ....do not term Italian as part of vulgar-latin .....it has moved on from that

 

[Angela]

http://www.dilit.it/en/doc/learn-Italian-language/italian_language_history_timeline.html
I said that Italian language came out of Vulgat latin regional italian languages and that italian language has lost/not gained the term vulgar latin.....it is exempt from this term.
Pietro Bembo and the others of his time ensured that the "Vulgar" part that Dante kept and worked on was removed and the Italian 'cleaned-up".
Linguist today ....do not term Italian as part of vulgar-latin .....it has moved on from that

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, and your link doesn't address your point at all. Did you think I wouldn't read it?

For other posters, obviously, "Vulgar Latin" just means the informal, colloquial, spoken Latin of the Roman Empire. All of the regional Romance languages descend from it, including Florentine. There was nothing per se "vulgar" about it in the sense that word is used today. It was also NOT the Latin which was used in Dante's time, which was Medieval Latin. Since Latin was then still a living language, it was still changing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin

When Dante was deciding which words to use in the Divina Commedia, and rejecting some local dialect words as too "vulgar" to use, he wasn't, for God's sakes, removing words derived from Vulgar Latin. Practically the whole damn lexicon is based on Vulgar Latin. He would have been left with almost no words at all.

I can't believe I just devoted time to this nonsense.

 

[Ygorcs]

YFor other posters, obviously, "Vulgar Latin" just means the informal, colloquial, spoken Latin of the Roman Empire. All of the regional Romance languages descend from it, including Florentine. There was nothing per se "vulgar" about it in the sense that word is used today. It was also NOT the Latin which was used in Dante's time, which was Medieval Latin. Since Latin was then still a living language, it was still changing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin

When Dante was deciding which words to use in the Divina Commedia, and rejecting some local dialect words as too "vulgar" to use, he wasn't, for God's sakes, removing words derived from Vulgar Latin. Practically the whole damn lexicon is based on Vulgar Latin. He would have been left with almost no words at all.

I can't believe I just devoted time to this nonsense.

Hahahahaha! Honestly I can't help but laugh reading your answer as you have to explain the most obvious, self-evident things. It's a virtually surreal situation, I mean, such categorical statements based on an irrelevant handful of misunderstandings... An entire misguided theory about the origin and nature of Italian is derived from this confusion about the meaning of the term "vulgar" (which was obviously "popular, of the common people, of the masses") and about the much, much later (more than 500 years to be precise) "purifying" standardization of Florentine-based Italian, as if that meant some kind of linguistic crusade against the Vulgar Latin origin of Italian. LOL

 

[Angela]

Hahahahaha! Honestly I can't help but laugh reading your answer as you have to explain the most obvious, self-evident things. It's a virtually surreal situation, I mean, such categorical statements based on an irrelevant handful of misunderstandings... An entire misguided theory about the origin and nature of Italian is derived from this confusion about the meaning of the term "vulgar" (which was obviously "popular, of the common people, of the masses") and about the much, much later (more than 500 years to be precise) "purifying" standardization of Florentine-based Italian, as if that meant some kind of linguistic crusade against the Vulgar Latin origin of Italian. LOL

Welcome to my world.

 

[Angela]

That's exactly right. Shakespeare in the original is a bit better (easier to understand) than Chaucer in the original, but theaters around the world are not going to present it in that way.

Chaucer in the original: it's beautiful, and better as poetry because you can hear the rhymes and the meter, but....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0ybnLRf3gU

I don't see the point in trying to revive that as a language.

How nice you brought up Rosa Ponselle. One of my closest friends is a music teacher and privately gives voice lessons. Her greatest regret is that she never had a career as a professional opera singer. It's been wonderful sharing this music with someone so informed, especially after my father's death. It was he who introduced me to opera. He knew all the Italian operas by heart, and sang them to me when I was a fractious baby and toddler who didn't want to go to sleep. As she grew to know my tastes, she said to me: You would love Rosa Ponselle. She was right: I do.

In a way I know what your relatives mean about the Ave Maria. It has, to me, a very melancholy melody, but it doesn't frighten me; it soothes and comforts me, even now when I've parted ways with the Church. I suppose I and many of the people I know associate it with our mothers. Italians are very sentimental about their mothers. The devotion to the mother symbol, and the mother and child, is particularly strong in our "brand" of Catholicism, too, at least in the days when more people were believers. I know Mary was important in all Catholic countries, but I've always thought there were more Madonna and Child representations in Italian churches, and privately, for that matter, than anywhere else in the world. When I was a child and teen-ager and very devout, all my prayers were to Mary: the Ave Maria, Hail Holy Queen, the Memorare, the Magnificat. I know that's something Protestants don't understand, but that's the way it was. Mary wore my mother's face, but was more powerful. I suppose it helped that we also play it at all our weddings. While it plays, after Communion is served, the bride brings a bouquet of flowers, sometimes her own, to the feet of Mary's statue right to the side of the altar.

If sung well, the Ave Maria always makes me a little teary. Listening to Rosa Ponselle sing it left me really crying, but I loved it. Thank-you.

Btw, I'm consistent in my likes and dislikes. Although the performers don't have to be Italian, I always prefer an Italianate style: I love Jussi Bjorling, for example. I put it down to the fact that I grew up listening not only to Caruso, but to Beniamino Gigli.

I posted the Gigli version of "Che Gelida Manina" in the What Are You Listening To thread. That's what I grew up hearing. I know all the criticism, especially of his later supposedly "over-emotional" renditions, but for me, as a non-professional, it's a lot about the tone and quality of the voice itself. Some technically good singers leave me cold. If there ever was a singer with a sweeter, more lovely, golden, honey like voice, I don't know who it was.

 

[Ygorcs]

That's exactly right. Shakespeare in the original is a bit better (easier to understand) than Chaucer in the original, but theaters around the world are not going to present it in that way.

Chaucer in the original: it's beautiful, and better as poetry because you can hear the rhymes and the meter, but....

I find Middle English a bit "French-accented" by present-day standards (maybe that's because of the more straightforward, less reduced or diphthongized vowels, coupled with many final schwas), and it was indeed a beautiful, poetic language. Strangely, in my opinion it didn't sound much closer to other of its "sister" Germanic languages (Dutch, Low German) as Old English definitely did. The transformation from Old to Middle English was not just on the grammatical and lexical level, but also on the very "sound" of the language (apparently).

How nice you brought up Rosa Ponselle. One of my closest friends is a music teacher and privately gives voice lessons. Her greatest regret is that she never had a career as a professional opera singer. It's been wonderful sharing this music with someone so informed, especially after my father's death. It was he who introduced me to opera. He knew all the Italian operas by heart, and sang them to me when I was a fractious baby and toddler who didn't want to go to sleep. As she grew to know my tastes, she said to me: You would love Rosa Ponselle. She was right: I do.

Nice! But to be honest that was a very easy bet, because who would be crazy enough to dislike Rosa Ponselle's voice?! LOL (Unfortunately I knew some who did, but then the opera world is full of bitter fans who get obsessed with some divas and divos and simply bash everyone who is not similar to their supposedly flawless idols). IMO Ponselle was particularly great when the aria/song required a more intimate and restrained approach, allowing her musicality and fantastic timbre to be fully appreciated without histrionic effects.

In a way I know what your relatives mean about the Ave Maria. It has, to me, a very melancholy melody, but it doesn't frighten me; it soothes and comforts me, even now when I've parted ways with the Church. I suppose I and many of the people I know associate it with our mothers. Italians are very sentimental about their mothers. The devotion to the mother symbol, and the mother and child, is particularly strong in our "brand" of Catholicism, too, at least in the days when more people were believers. I know Mary was important in all Catholic countries, but I've always thought there were more Madonna and Child representations in Italian churches, and privately, for that matter, than anywhere else in the world. When I was a child and teen-ager and very devout, all my prayers were to Mary: the Ave Maria, Hail Holy Queen, the Memorare, the Magnificat. I know that's something Protestants don't understand, but that's the way it was. Mary wore my mother's face, but was more powerful.

Your description of Catholicism in Italy is so familiar to me! I don't know how much the massive Italian immigration in Brazil may have influenced on that (the immigrants were almost entirely concentrated in the Southeast/South of the country, actually), but traditional Catholics in Brazil have (and in the past had even much more) a very strong Marian devotion, a really intensive focus on the Virgin Mary and her role as the glorified image of perfect motherhood, the intercessor and even a sort of saintly attorney on behalf of humankind, a protective figure who "understands men and women because she was one of us". Many Catholics, just like you on your youth, prayed to the Virgin Mary more often than to God Himself, because their relationship with her was more personal, more intimate - probably because all the talk about her being their mother in Heaven made them identify her as the more approachable and familiar image of the divine.

I don't know if that came from Portugal that way or if the somewhat syncretic Brazilian Catholicism started to develop to enhance that motherly figure, but the growth of evangelical Christianity in the last decades was strongly based on the critique of Brazilian Catholics' supposed "heresy" for emphasizing the Virgin Mary (many Catholics were even outraged because some pastors took that criticism to the absurdity of bashing her - as if she were not the mother of the same Jesus Christ they worship -, culminating on the scandal when a TV broadcasted a pastor tearing statues of the Virgin Mary apart as he denounded the "blasphemy" of the Mary veneration).

I suppose it helped that we also play it at all our weddings. While it plays, after Communion is served, the bride brings a bouquet of flowers, sometimes her own, to the feet of Mary's statue right to the side of the altar.

Interestingly I've seen a different, but similar custom in many (perhaps most) Catholic weddings I have attended here. They call it consagração a Nossa Senhora (consecration to Our Lady). But here they pick one of the bridesmaids to carry a statue of the Virgin Mary along the church aisle and place it on the altar before the bride and bridegrooom. People usually clap, sing chants praising Mary together, and some relatives are given flowers to offer at the feet of the statue. Do you know if any similar custom is also practiced in Iberia or other parts of Southern Europe?

If sung well, the Ave Maria always makes me a little teary. Listening to Rosa Ponselle sing it left me really crying, but I loved it. Thank-you.

My pleasure! I find her interpretation extremely moving and spiritual - but without needing to resort to any sobbing or sugary phrasing. Just the right measure of emotion.

 

[ROS]

https://youtu.be/UOUO0GHINKc
Good pronunciation of the classical Indo-European = Latin of the magnificent singer Enyawhich by the way is pronounced practically the same as Spanish
That is, if you want to hear Latin saying traveling to Spain or Italy you can already hear how the Latin was pronounced.

 

[Angela]

Ygorcs;550965]I find Middle English a bit "French-accented" by present-day standards (maybe that's because of the more straightforward, less reduced or diphthongized vowels, coupled with many final schwas), and it was indeed a beautiful, poetic language. Strangely, in my opinion it didn't sound much closer to other of its "sister" Germanic languages (Dutch, Low German) as Old English definitely did. The transformation from Old to Middle English was not just on the grammatical and lexical level, but also on the very "sound" of the language (apparently).

I'm not a fan of "Old English" at all. I found reading Beowulf in the original not only grueling but unpleasant, and yes, it was the sounds I didn't like.

To me, Middle English sounds vaguely Scottish but more melodic.

Nice! But to be honest that was a very easy bet, because who would be crazy enough to dislike Rosa Ponselle's voice?! LOL (Unfortunately I knew some who did, but then the opera world is full of bitter fans who get obsessed with some divas and divos and simply bash everyone who is not similar to their supposedly flawless idols). IMO Ponselle was particularly great when the aria/song required a more intimate and restrained approach, allowing her musicality and fantastic timbre to be fully appreciated without histrionic effects.

Believe me, I know. I steer far clear of the wars over Callas, for example. My voice teacher friend is not really a Callas fan, and a friend I met relatively recently adores her and will hear no criticism. All very unnecessary. They're as biased and unwilling to listen to other points of view as a lot of the amateurs in population genetics.

Your description of Catholicism in Italy is so familiar to me! I don't know how much the massive Italian immigration in Brazil may have influenced on that (the immigrants were almost entirely concentrated in the Southeast/South of the country, actually), but traditional Catholics in Brazil have (and in the past had even much more) a very strong Marian devotion, a really intensive focus on the Virgin Mary and her role as the glorified image of perfect motherhood, the intercessor and even a sort of saintly attorney on behalf of humankind, a protective figure who "understands men and women because she was one of us". Many Catholics, just like you on your youth, prayed to the Virgin Mary more often than to God Himself, because their relationship with her was more personal, more intimate - probably because all the talk about her being their mother in Heaven made them identify her as the more approachable and familiar image of the divine.

I don't know if that came from Portugal that way or if the somewhat syncretic Brazilian Catholicism started to develop to enhance that motherly figure, but the growth of evangelical Christianity in the last decades was strongly based on the critique of Brazilian Catholics' supposed "heresy" for emphasizing the Virgin Mary (many Catholics were even outraged because some pastors took that criticism to the absurdity of bashing her - as if she were not the mother of the same Jesus Christ they worship -, culminating on the scandal when a TV broadcasted a pastor tearing statues of the Virgin Mary apart as he denounded the "blasphemy" of the Mary veneration).



Interestingly I've seen a different, but similar custom in many (perhaps most) Catholic weddings I have attended here. They call it consagração a Nossa Senhora (consecration to Our Lady). But here they pick one of the bridesmaids to carry a statue of the Virgin Mary along the church aisle and place it on the altar before the bride and bridegrooom. People usually clap, sing chants praising Mary together, and some relatives are given flowers to offer at the feet of the statue. Do you know if any similar custom is also practiced in Iberia or other parts of Southern Europe?

Now there's an unnecessary and very ugly way of behaving. (i.e. this violent dislike of the Marian aspect to Catholicism) I don't understand the impetus to leave a religion at least trying to incorporate science for one that asks you to believe in a flat earth a few thousands of years old. Part of it, I recognize, is also aesthetics for me. There is no western religion as aesthetically pleasing as Roman Catholicism used to be. (Now, even within the Church, the Masses are flat, cold, held in what look like school auditoriums or bingo halls.) There's also virtually no place for mysticism in the other western Christian faiths. I may not be a Catholic any longer, but I never was tempted in the slightest by these kinds of denominations.

I don't know if placing flowers at the foot of the Virgin Mary is common in Spain. I never attended a wedding there. I've been to Portuguese-American weddings here and it is done.

 

[Sile]

Languages can literally die overnight when the last of their speakers dies, but the death of Latin was very different.
After the fall of the Roman empire in the west in AD 476, Latin evolved into a wide variety of regional dialects now known as Romance vernaculars. In the early 14th century the Florentine poet Dante Alighieri reckoned that more than 1,000 such dialects were spoken in Italy. At the time of Dante, Latin was still used in literature, philosophy, medicine and other cultural or legal written documents. Dialects were spoken, but also used in writing: the earliest examples of vernacular writing in Italy date from the ninth century.
The early 16th century saw the dialect used by Dante in his work replace Latin as the language of culture. We can thus say that modern Italian descends from 14th-century literary Florentine. Italy did not become a single nation until 1861, at which time less than 10 per cent of its citizens spoke the national language, Italian.
In 1861, the 22million Italians censored ( not including the Lombards, Veneti and Furlani who where still under Austria ) where stated as 78% illiterate , 19% spoke their Regional Languages and 3% knew of the italian Language. All the Illiterate % spoke their regional languages. Once Lombardy in 1866 and Veneto and Friuli joined in 1870 this 3% dropped to 2%.
Regional Italian languages used the Latin alphabet which included W,X,J,K and Y ..............the Italian alphabet does not use these letters unless the borrow the word like Juventus ( Latin word).
Over 900 years passed between the creation of the regional Italian languages and the creation of Italian, basically making Italian a dialect of a few Italian Regional languages , like Florentine for one.
Since the Regional Italian languages are unrecognizable between each other , then this rules out any ideas of these languages being a dialect of the same language ( linguistic rules )

 

[Angela]

Again with a totally illogical response. None of this has anything to do with your astoundingly absurd posts based on ignorance about the meaning of the term "Vulgar Latin" and how that relates to Dante's pruning of what he considered "vulgar" phrases from the vernacular he chose to use in writing the Divina Commedia.

If you don't know something as fundamental as that, and can make such a colossal blunder, then you have no business commenting on linguistic topics.

Do you like parading your ignorance like this?

That's it: back on ignore.

 

[Sile]

Languages can literally die overnight when the last of their speakers dies, but the death of Latin was very different.
After the fall of the Roman empire in the west in AD 476, Latin evolved into a wide variety of regional dialects now known as Romance vernaculars. In the early 14th century the Florentine poet Dante Alighieri reckoned that more than 1,000 such dialects were spoken in Italy. At the time of Dante, Latin was still used in literature, philosophy, medicine and other cultural or legal written documents. Dialects were spoken, but also used in writing: the earliest examples of vernacular writing in Italy date from the ninth century.
The early 16th century saw the dialect used by Dante in his work replace Latin as the language of culture. We can thus say that modern Italian descends from 14th-century literary Florentine. Italy did not become a single nation until 1861, at which time less than 10 per cent of its citizens spoke the national language, Italian.
In 1861, the 22million Italians censored ( not including the Lombards, Veneti and Furlani who where still under Austria ) where stated as 78% illiterate , 19% spoke their Regional Languages and 3% knew of the italian Language. All the Illiterate % spoke their regional languages. Once Lombardy in 1866 and Veneto and Friuli joined in 1870 this 3% dropped to 2%.
Regional Italian languages used the Latin alphabet which included W,X,J,K and Y ..............the Italian alphabet does not use these letters unless the borrow the word like Juventus ( Latin word).
Over 900 years passed between the creation of the regional Italian languages and the creation of Italian, basically making Italian a dialect of a few Italian Regional languages , like Florentine for one.
Since the Regional Italian languages are unrecognizable between each other , then this rules out any ideas of these languages being a dialect of the same language ( linguistic rules )

All Romance languages came out of the Romance vernaculars ( basically vulgar latin ) french, sicilian, catalan, venetian, tuscan, leonese, castilian, occitan and many others
https://books.google.com.au/books?i...AIQAQ#v=onepage&q=Romance vernaculars&f=false
all are equal...call them languages or dialects....in the linguistic society , they mean the same.
https://books.google.com.au/books?i...IBRAB#v=onepage&q=Romance vernaculars&f=false
Pietro bembo "cleaned up" Dante's works
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/arts/A-Rare-Look-at-Pietro-Bembo.html

 

[Angela]

Too bad you didn't figure that out before you posted.

 

[Yetos]

The Latin V is a complex to me,

the reason is gramtically at the end of the word fits with Greek υ ου

the is the posessive case, which ment the father's son = father possesion
like Scans have -son
for example Peter Peter-son
in Greek was Petros Petrou Πετρου
yet in many Aromanian and S Slavic is -οv
while in Romanian stays as -ou
So In correct Greek son of Petros as family name is Petrou
as also in Romanian (Latin language) is Petrou
but in S Slavic and in some Aromanian is Petrov
while in most East to Russia turns to Petroff

my wonder is could the S Slavic end -ov cognate with Greek possesive family name ending -ου, and have origin from Deocletian rules
while the S Slavic -ic seems more Slavic or Thracian, than Greek -ικος
so could Latin V to have simmilar sound with Greek Y?

velocity uelocity


ok for fun
Learn Latin as Monty pythons did.

 

[Angela]

The Latin V is a complex to me,

the reason is gramtically at the end of the word fits with Greek υ ου

the is the posessive case, which ment the father's son = father possesion
like Scans have -son
for example Peter Peter-son
in Greek was Petros Petrou Πετρου
yet in many Aromanian and S Slavic is -οv
while in Romanian stays as -ou
So In correct Greek son of Petros as family name is Petrou
as also in Romanian (Latin language) is Petrou
but in S Slavic and in some Aromanian is Petrov
while in most East to Russia turns to Petroff

my wonder is could the S Slavic end -ov cognate with Greek possesive family name ending -ου, and have origin from Deocletian rules
while the S Slavic -ic seems more Slavic or Thracian, than Greek -ικος
so could Latin V to have simmilar sound with Greek Y?

velocity uelocity


ok for fun
Learn Latin as Monty pythons did.

Can't count on always meeting only stupid policemen.

 

[ROS]

I think that at this stage of genetic science, the questions are:

The Latin and the Greek, are languages of the steppe?

In other words, the classical Indo-European languages Latin and Greek are languages of the steppe?

Is the Pantheon and the Parthenon buildings steppe?

It would be interesting a response from the wise.

 

[Ygorcs]

I think that at this stage of genetic science, the questions are:

The Latin and the Greek, are languages of the steppe?

In other words, the classical Indo-European languages Latin and Greek are languages of the steppe?

Is the Pantheon and the Parthenon buildings steppe?

It would be interesting a response from the wise.

I don't think any reliable scientist is making these questions, because they're simply unnecessary and miss the point: we know for a fact that Classical Latin and Classical Greek were not languages of the steppe, they were obviously spoken in Italy and the Aegean area, mainly Greece, respectively; and the Pantheon and the Parthenon are way too recent - at least 2,500 years too late, to be more precise - to even have any remote relevance in the discussion about the origin of Proto-Indo-European. Some people need to understand that when scientists look for the origins of the Proto-Indo-European language and the culture that concentrated most of its speakers, they are not talking of the same languages, cultures and ethnic populations that are like grandchildren or even great-grandchildren of that language and culture, as if they already existed several milennia earlier in some latent form. That's a totally misguided way to look at this issue. Greeks, Latins, Germans were not just the younger version of the Chalcolithic Indo-Europeans, they formed entirely new realities, including genetically, but especially in sociocultural terms.