Some latin questions

[GIR]

Why is it QUID est veritas instead of QUIS est veritas?

I’ve heard “ecce agnus dei qui tollis peccata mundi.”
shouldn’t it be “ecce agnus dei qui tollit peccata mundi.”

are you or are you not supposed to pronounce the H’s?

 

[MarkThompson]

Why is it QUID est veritas instead of QUIS est veritas?

Quid est veritas? = What is truth?

Quis est veritas? = Who is truth?

(Quis is masculine, thus implies a person; quid is neuter, thus implies a thing.)

I’ve heard “ecce agnus dei qui tollis peccata mundi.”
shouldn’t it be “ecce agnus dei qui tollit peccata mundi.”

The former would be a remark of wonderment said speaking to the Lamb (qui tollis = (you) who take away); the latter would be an instruction to others to behold the Lamb (qui tollit = who takes away).

are you or are you not supposed to pronounce the H’s?

There are varying interpretations, all the way from pronouncing it as a K (miki, nikil) to ignoring it completely (mi’i, ni’il). Personally, I make it a moderate fricative consonant, somewhat like the ch in Bach.

Edited to add: on thinking about it, that’s what I do when it’s in the middle of a word (treating it also similarly to a Spanish j), but at the beginning of a word (humanitas, humillime) I ignore it.

 

[floresco]

are you or are you not supposed to pronounce the H’s?

In A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin by John F. Collins the author say that the “h” is pronounced the same as English, as does Cursus Linguae Latinae Vivae and the Memoria Press Latin program. These all use ecclesiastical pronunciation. Wheelock’s Latin which is classical also says to pronounce it. I know that I have read somewhere (I think it was my Square Notes workbook but I can’t find it to check) that one does not pronounce the initial “h” when singing Latin. That is the practice of the choir I sing in.

 

[DLONex]

are you or are you not supposed to pronounce the H’s?

Liber Usualis xxxviij:

H is pronounced K in the two words nihil (nee-keel) and mihi, (mee-kee) and their compounds. In ancient books these words are often written nichil and
michi. In all other cases H is mute.

That is for Ecclesiastical pronunciation. However, I personally do not like the sound of Ecclesiastical Latin (probably due to learning the Classical system first); to me Ecclesiastical Latin sounds like an Italian trying (and failing miserably) at singing Latin correctly. However, it is the standard for the most part, so I will stick to the rules in a choral setting.

However, on the point of Hs, I generally do not follow the Liber Usualis’ guidelines. The Hs are in the word for a reason, and in Classical they were an aspirant of some kind (most likely [h] if you know IPA). They played a role in how syllables were broken up, and to ignore the letter as if it did not exist makes no sense to me. Likewise, there are many ancient documents that provide alternate spellings (dextera was originally dexetera), but we do not force that pronunciation upon the word. Likewise, we should not force the pronunciations of michi and nichil on the forms mihi and nihil. Again, this paragraph is all my personal preference talking, so please don’t mistake it for anything else. However, the quote from the Liber Usualis should sum everything up well enough.

 

[Bluegoat]

Just a thought, but not singing the 'aiches might have more to do with the way it sounds sung than with proper enunciation for speaking.

 

[VetA]

Why is it QUID est veritas instead of QUIS est veritas?

I’ve heard “ecce agnus dei qui tollis peccata mundi.”
shouldn’t it be “ecce agnus dei qui tollit peccata mundi.”

are you or are you not supposed to pronounce the H’s?

in secular circles the c or cc are pronounced like a c or k. in religious c and cc are pronounced with the h

 

[DLONex]

Just a thought, but not singing the 'aiches might have more to do with the way it sounds sung than with proper enunciation for speaking.

Not so much. The Liber Usualis uses the example of a professor lecturing (i.e. speaking) in good ecclesiastical Latin as the standard for its pronunciation.

in secular circles the c or cc are pronounced like a c or k. in religious c and cc are pronounced with the h

I think the OP was referring to actual Hs, as in humilitas, mihi, and eheu rather than the English convention of using an H to mean a change in phoneme (i.e. “cat” versus “church”). Besides, C and CC are not always this [tʃ] sound (the CH in English “church”) even in ecclesiastical Latin. C and CC are [k] (roughly the C in English “cat”) before As, Os, and Us (as in caritas, congregavit and saecula, all with a hard C sound).

 

[MarkThompson]

Not so much. The Liber Usualis uses the example of a professor lecturing (i.e. speaking) in good ecclesiastical Latin as the standard for its pronunciation.

I just wish it were easier to find mp3s or YouTube videos of people speaking good ecclesiastical Latin. Father Z and others have such a thick American accent; are there no Italians who have recorded themselves reading the Gospels in Latin or something? It would be nice.

I think the OP was referring to actual Hs, as in humilitas, mihi, and eheu rather than the English convention of using an H to mean a change in phoneme (i.e. “cat” versus “church”). Besides, C and CC are not always this [tʃ] sound (the CH in English “church”) even in ecclesiastical Latin. C and CC are [k] (roughly the C in English “cat”) before As, Os, and Us (as in caritas, congregavit and saecula, all with a hard C sound).

True, the c or cc is soft only before e or i; it’s hard in accuso or occasio.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that Italian, which developed naturally, does not generally allow a difference in the pronunciation of a c to result from inflection – so, for instance, bianco (white) and amica (a female friend) have a hard c, and so gain an h in the plural, bianchi and amiche, to retain the hardness,* whereas ecclesiastical Latin betrays the artificiality of its pronunciation in its failure to do the same.

*With some exceptions, notably amico → amici.

 

[DLONex]

I just wish it were easier to find mp3s or YouTube videos of people speaking good ecclesiastical Latin. Father Z and others have such a thick American accent; are there no Italians who have recorded themselves reading the Gospels in Latin or something? It would be nice.

I would offer some of the polyphony recordings I’ve done, but I admit that my own pronunciation lets aspiration into the dental consonants a lot of the time among other small errors here and there.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that Italian, which developed naturally, does not generally allow a difference in the pronunciation of a c to result from inflection – so, for instance, bianco (white) and amica (a female friend) have a hard c, and so gain an h in the plural, bianchi and amiche, to retain the hardness,* whereas ecclesiastical Latin betrays the artificiality of its pronunciation in its failure to do the same.

*With some exceptions, notably amico → amici.

Exactly! One is applying writing to fit the language in usage. The other is trying to do it backwards, and it shows.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

To OP, St. Pius X said that the proper pronunciation of Latin is the Italian method and encouraged everyone to adopt this.

Until that time, there were a lot of differences from country to country–so much so that at Vatican I there were “translators” of “French Latin” into Latin properly spoken (the Italian method) so that the fathers of the council could speak to one another. To understand this, take some common Latin phrases that are pronounced in the English way (not just with an English accent): et cetera (with the c pronounced like an s), vice versa (where vice is pronounced as “vice” in English), ad hoc (where the a is not pronounced like Latin at all and the o is pronounced more like an au in English), de facto (where facto is pronounced like the word fact in English rather than with an open pure a), habeas corpus (this is probably the best example I can come up with right now… I wish I could think of some of the other examples I’ve heard. A movie from c. 1970 about a flying bed offered many such examples. The pronunciation literally would render the language unintelligible to someone who is fluent.) People used to say Mass in this way, pronouncing things pretty much like English. (How disgusting!) Fortunately, St. Pius X set things straight.

The “classical” pronunciation was devised by German secularists in the 19th century with a purpose to sound un-ecclesiastical (though some of their arguments seem to hold for the way Latin was pronounced, say, in the Golden Age). This is part of the reason it sounds strikingly like the German pronunciation of Latin.

It is important to note that the proper Italian pronunciation does not simply mean the Italian way of speaking Latin with an accent from your particular country (e.g., aspirating h’s or making any notice of the h’s at all, for that matter). The h is entirely silent and is never noticed, whether it is at the beginning or middle of the word with the only two exceptions being mihi and nihil for the reason noted. Well, the reason is that the pronunciation developed that way for those words, which is why they can sometimes be found spelled michi or nichil. The best way to learn proper pronunciation with what is readily available online is to go to YouTube and listen to the Coronation ceremonies for Pius XII, John XXIII, etc. It is interesting to note that the open and close e’s and o’s can be heard even in the Latin pronunciation. I also highly recommend looking for videos from the Popes (they exist for Leo XIII on, though there is only one of him, none of St. Pius X available on YouTube, and only a couple of Benedict XV) in their everyday lives rather than simply at Mass. You garner a much greater understanding of Romanitas this way. Take, for example, the video available of Leo XIII. If one were unfamiliar with the Roman way, he would not even realize that the Pope is actually giving his blessing while seated, not waving to the crowd. Granted, he was elderly and quite frail, but the same non-German, non-English rigidity can be seen in Benedict XV at a much healthier age. Pius XII is perhaps the best example of this, but he was considered slightly theatrical even by the upper echelon of Italian society at the time.

 

[excubitor]

are you or are you not supposed to pronounce the H’s?

H’s are silent but some words like mihi used to be spelled michi. Like as in Bach as the other poster pointed out. For some reason the ‘c’ was dropped from the spelling. These kinds of exceptions are very rare in Latin as compared to English.

 

[MarkThompson]

IntegraCatholic, the ecclesiastical pronunciation of the late 19th century is hardly the be-all and end-all of Latin pronunciation. It was itself the result of centuries of gross deformations in the pronunciation of Latin. It primarily consists of imposing the pronunciation of the vulgar tongue, Italian, on a text written in an earlier language, Latin. Your talk of people “fluent in Latin” is pretty much meaningless in terms of the 19th century; no one was fluent in Latin, they were Italians, and they pronounced the texts like they pronounced their own vernacular. That’s nothing to be ashamed of – it’s just the way things developed, and I happen to like both Latin and Italian – but it’s not a very good reason for pride or partisanship.

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t believe the Poles ever switched to the Italian usage. I recall one of my Latin professors saying that there are a few films of John Paul II saying Mass shortly after becoming Pope, and he occasionally slips back into Polish Latin.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

IntegraCatholic, the ecclesiastical pronunciation of the late 19th century is hardly the be-all and end-all of Latin pronunciation. It was itself the result of centuries of gross deformations in the pronunciation of Latin. It primarily consists of imposing the pronunciation of the vulgar tongue, Italian, on a text written in an earlier language, Latin. Your talk of people “fluent in Latin” is pretty much meaningless in terms of the 19th century; no one was fluent in Latin, they were Italians, and they pronounced the texts like they pronounced their own vernacular. That’s nothing to be ashamed of – it’s just the way things developed, and I happen to like both Latin and Italian – but it’s not a very good reason for pride or partisanship.

Regardless of your opinion of proper pronunciation of Latin, which I disagree with (but that is of no moment), what actually matters is that St. Pius X has instructed those in an ecclesiastical context to use the proper Italian pronunciation. What’s more, modern Italian is little other than Latin as it was spoken by the people of Tuscany, especially Florence, in the high middle ages. The comment that people weren’t fluent in Latin in the 19th (and 20th) century is quite off the mark, however. Even Vatican II was conducted in Latin. (There is a funny story, in fact, of an American cardinal embarrassing himself by trying to make a passionate speech in the equivalent Latin of about a second-year student.) I think your pretension has to do with the term “fluent,” but the fact that it was not used as a vulgar language does not make someone any less fluent, just as we can speak of people today fluent in Esperanto.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I don’t believe the Poles ever switched to the Italian usage. I recall one of my Latin professors saying that there are a few films of John Paul II saying Mass shortly after becoming Pope, and he occasionally slips back into Polish Latin.

That is true of most countries, actually (French and German-speaking countries, especially). The correction envisioned by St. Pius X did not necessarily take root as much as he would have liked. It didn’t have much time to take root, of course, because Latin began to wane considerably less than half a century later. The Latin knowledge even in Europe for the entirety of the 20th century was quite a bit lower than that of the 19th. I can’t speak accurately of the history before that time, whether there was any discrepancy among the hierarchy from the 19th to 18th to 17th centuries. To illustrate the point, there is a story of Paul VI shedding tears at a Latin discourse of a layman because, while he could completely comprehend the grandeur of the style compared to something that would be more banal, he knew he could never speak Latin so well. Another facet to consider is that the secular institutions obviously never adopted the recommendation.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I just wish it were easier to find mp3s or YouTube videos of people speaking good ecclesiastical Latin. Father Z and others have such a thick American accent; are there no Italians who have recorded themselves reading the Gospels in Latin or something? It would be nice.

I like this site: – How to pronounce Latin*PHONETICA LATINÆ *. And :twocents: like the fellow there, I tend to pronounce H’s.

Also, it seems to me, when his holiness Pope Benedict celebrates the Mass, I hear, eg, Hoc est corpus meum, but maybe that is “wishful hearing”?

tee

 

[ProVobis]

IntegraCatholic, the ecclesiastical pronunciation of the late 19th century is hardly the be-all and end-all of Latin pronunciation. It was itself the result of centuries of gross deformations in the pronunciation of Latin. It primarily consists of imposing the pronunciation of the vulgar tongue, Italian, on a text written in an earlier language, Latin. Your talk of people “fluent in Latin” is pretty much meaningless in terms of the 19th century; no one was fluent in Latin, they were Italians, and they pronounced the texts like they pronounced their own vernacular. That’s nothing to be ashamed of – it’s just the way things developed, and I happen to like both Latin and Italian – but it’s not a very good reason for pride or partisanship.

Mark, the other thread was closed but I wanted to reply to your comment about the US Constitution being written in Latin. I agree with you about the “now it means this” but that would be true with any language.

But keep in mind we still have legal terms like “pro bono” “habeas corpus” “de facto” “quid pro quo” “quasi” “ad hominem” “bone fide” “et al” used in courts. (With Italian pronunciations, of course. ) I think we want to keep it that way, don’t you? Or would you rather have the US Supreme Court or the ICEL decide on the proper translation?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legal_Latin_terms

 

[MarkThompson]

I like this site: *PHONETICA LATINÆ *– How to pronounce Latin. And :twocents: like the fellow there, I tend to pronounce H’s.

Also, it seems to me, when his holiness Pope Benedict celebrates the Mass, I hear, eg, Hoc est corpus meum, but maybe that is “wishful hearing”?

tee

Thanks, that looks like a good reference for people who are learning. For myself, I’d like to hear long texts naturally spoken, or something like the equivalent of listening to Spanish radio when you want to get the natural sounds and rhythms of Spanish in your brain. It’s a farfetched hope, I know.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Thanks, that looks like a good reference for people who are learning. For myself, I’d like to hear long texts naturally spoken, or something like the equivalent of listening to Spanish radio when you want to get the natural sounds and rhythms of Spanish in your brain. It’s a farfetched hope, I know.

The only such resource I know on the web is, IMHO, an imperfect one at GreekLatinAudio.com. I find the speaker to be using a Spanish accent (eg: J is pronounced as English H; soft C as English S; QU as English K), but on the other hand, he has provided a resource as I have not been willing to do.

For a better (IMHO) pronunciation, you might try resources from the *Familia Sancti Hieronymi *-- I have experience only of their Cursus Linguae Latinae Vivae, but they also have audio of some books of the bible. (And I see they have finally updated from cassettes to CDs , even if they do seem to have gone to 1-CD-per-cassette-side)

tee

 

[DLONex]

To OP, St. Pius X said that the proper pronunciation of Latin is the Italian method and encouraged everyone to adopt this.

Until that time, there were a lot of differences from country to country–so much so that at Vatican I there were “translators” of “French Latin” into Latin properly spoken (the Italian method) so that the fathers of the council could speak to one another.

These pronunciations still exist and are still viable systems of pronunciation. “Properly spoken” is biased unless by it you mean “properly spoken according to Italian pronunciation.” Even St. Pius X (if I’m not mistaken) only specifically encouraged the use in the Liturgical setting or when dealing with matters related to the church. Thus it is not the only “proper” pronunciation, but rather, is itself only proper in certain situations. If I’m mistaken about St. Pius X’s statements, please direct me to the quotations I’m wrong about (I don’t mean that to sound rude or insolent; I’m actually just interested ).

Fortunately, St. Pius X set things straight.

While not personally a fan of Italian Latin as the be-all, end-all of Latin pronunciation, I must commend St. Pius X on his part in helping to get rid of English Latin . . . it truly was disgusting as far as I’m concerned.

The “classical” pronunciation was devised by German secularists in the 19th century with a purpose to sound un-ecclesiastical (though some of their arguments seem to hold for the way Latin was pronounced, say, in the Golden Age). This is part of the reason it sounds strikingly like the German pronunciation of Latin.

That’s not entirely true. It may have been derived by German secularists, but that has nothing to do with it. The point was not to make Latin sound un-ecclesiastical, but rather to see how close to Latin (as it was spoken by Romans) the current systems of the time came. Two completely different things. And for the record, while it may have started out strikingly close to German (I’m not up to date on the history of Classical Latin reconstruction through the past couple centuries), it is certainly incorrect to say that of the Classical pronunciation taught now. Besides, the sources for Classical pronunciation are far from biased toward any nationality or religion; we have the writings of the historical Republican and Imperial grammarians themselves discussing nearly every facet of the language’s pronunciation. Hardly “some of their arguments.”

It is important to note that the proper Italian pronunciation does not simply mean the Italian way of speaking Latin with an accent from your particular country (e.g., aspirating h’s or making any notice of the h’s at all, for that matter). The h is entirely silent and is never noticed, whether it is at the beginning or middle of the word with the only two exceptions being mihi and nihil for the reason noted. Well, the reason is that the pronunciation developed that way for those words, which is why they can sometimes be found spelled michi or nichil.

Again, that’s not a valid argument. Many words had alternate spellings, but these two are older (read as "archaic at the time of the Empire) spellings of the words. The overwhelming majority (if not all) spelling variances at the time of the church’s founding in Latin dealt with vowel changes that make no sense in the supposedly “correct” ecclesiastical pronunciation. For example, “optimus” was often spelled “optumus” by native speakers. The * and of ecclesiastical Latin would not allow for such a variance. However, * Edit: (Is this showing up as lowercase to others? It should be an upper-case “I”)* and ʊ] respectively (which the ancient grammarians reference as sounds) do allow for such.

I simply do not see the reason behind forcing one contrived and unfitting pronunciation system over other contrived and unfitting pronunciation systems. Besides, the Latin you speak of that was spoken in Tuscany was itself a derivative of Vulgar Latin, not the Latin which the church uses (they really were almost completely different languages, much like is slowly happening with English in public speaking versus everyday conversation). So even if the progeny of Italian pronunciation is 100% from this Tuscan period, it’s based on a completely different system than the one it claims to be.

Edit: To put it in terms of the English language: Beowulf was written in (for sake of argument, though I know we can’t pin it down) 800 AD. Chaucer comes along some 500 - 600 years later speaking Middle English, which is a derivative. He picks up Beowulf and begins to read it as if it were pronounced like Middle English exactly. We then freeze this pronunciation in time until modernity and use it exactly and perfectly. Yes, it’s an old pronunciation, but it’s still an incorrect pronunciation. It’s the same thing with the Church’s Latin. The pronunciation system of the Italians ultimately traces back to high Latin, but this does not mean it is the same.*