initial commit of ebook 7528HEADmain

16 files changed, 14417 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6833f05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+* text=auto
+*.txt text
+*.md text
diff --git a/7528-0.txt b/7528-0.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0f2ba3c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/7528-0.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,2764 @@
+Project Gutenberg's The Roman Pronunciation of Latin, by Frances E. Lord
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: The Roman Pronunciation of Latin
+
+Author: Frances E. Lord
+
+Posting Date: July 8, 2010 [EBook #7528]
+Release Date: February, 2005
+First Posted: May 14, 2003
+Last Updated: May 24, 2007
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: UTF-8
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ROMAN PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Louise Hope, David Starner, Ted Garvin and
+the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
+https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from scanned
+images of public domain material from the Google Print
+project.)
+
+
+
+
+
+[Transcriber’s Note:
+
+This e-text includes characters that require UTF-8 (Unicode) file
+encoding, primarily Greek words and letters, and some letters with
+macron or breve:
+
+  ā ē ī ō ū
+  ă ĕ ĭ ŏ ŭ
+
+If any of these characters do not display properly--in particular, if
+the diacritic does not appear directly above the letter--or if the
+apostrophes and quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage,
+make sure your text reader’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set
+to Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font. As a
+last resort, use the Latin-1 version of the file instead.
+
+Boldface is shown as +marks+, italics as _lines_.]
+
+
+
+
+  The
+
+  ROMAN PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN
+
+  Why we use it and How to use it
+
+
+  by
+
+  FRANCES E. LORD
+  Professor of Latin in Wellesley College
+
+
+
+  Boston, U.S.A.
+  Published by Ginn & Company
+  1894
+
+
+
+
+  Copyright, 1894
+  By FRANCES E. LORD
+  All Rights Reserved
+
+
+    [Publisher’s Device: The Athenæum Press / Ginn and Company]
+
+
+
+
+_Contents_ (added by transcriber)
+
+  Introduction
+  PART I. Why We Use It.
+    Sounds of the Letters.
+      Vowels.
+      Diphthongs.
+      Consonants.
+    Quantity.
+    Accent.
+    Pitch.
+  PART II. How To Use It.
+    Elision.
+    Quantity.
+    Accent.
+
+
+
+
+INTRODUCTION.
+
+
+The argument brought against the ‘Roman pronunciation’ of Latin is
+twofold: the impossibility of perfect theoretical knowledge, and the
+difficulty of practical attainment.
+
+If to know the main features of the classic pronunciation of Latin were
+impossible, then our obvious course would be to refuse the attempt; to
+regard the language as in reality dead, and to make no pretence of
+reading it. This is in fact what the English scholars generally do. But
+if we may know substantially the sounds of the tongue in which Cicero
+spoke and Horace sung, shall we give up the delights of the melody and
+the rhythm and content ourselves with the thought form? Poetry
+especially does not exist apart from sound; sense alone will not
+constitute it, nor even sense and form without sound.
+
+But if it is true that the task of practical acquisition is, if not
+impossible, extremely difficult, ‘the work of a lifetime,’ as the
+objectors say, do the results justify the expenditure of time and labor?
+
+The position of the English-speaking peoples is not the same in this as
+that of Europeans. Europeans have not the same necessity to urge them to
+the ‘Roman pronunciation.’ Their own languages represent the Latin more
+or less adequately, in vowel sounds, in accent, and even, to some
+extent, in quantity; so that with them, all is not lost if they
+translate the sounds into their own tongues; while with us, nothing is
+left--sound, accent, quantity, all is gone; none of these is reproduced,
+or even suggested, in English.
+
+We believe a great part of our difficulty, in this country, lies in the
+fact that so few of those who study and teach Latin really know what the
+‘Roman pronunciation’ is, or how to use it. Inquiries are constantly
+being made by teachers, Why is this so? What authority is there for
+this? What reason for that?
+
+In the hope of giving help to those who desire to know the Why
+and the How this little compendium is made; in the interest of
+time-and-labor-saving uniformity, and in the belief that what cannot be
+fully known or perfectly acquired does still not prevent our perceiving,
+and showing in some worthy manner and to, some satisfactory degree, how,
+as well as what, the honey-tongued orators and divine poets of Rome
+spoke or sung.
+
+In the following pages free use has been made of the highest English
+authorities, of Oxford and Cambridge. Quotations will be found from
+Prof. H. A. J. Munro’s pamphlet on “Pronunciation of Latin,” and from
+Prof. A. J. Ellis’ book on “Quantitative Pronunciation of Latin”; also
+from the pamphlet issued by the Cambridge (Eng.) Philological Society,
+on the “Pronunciation of Latin in the Augustan Period.”
+
+In the present compendium the chief points of divergence from the
+general American understanding of the ‘Roman’ method are in respect of
+the diphthong +ae+ and the consonantal +u+. In these cases the
+pronunciation herein recommended for the +ae+ is that favored by Roby,
+Munro, and Ellis, and adopted by the Cambridge Philological Society; for
+the +v+, or +u+ consonant, that advocated by Corssen, A. J. Ellis, and
+Robinson Ellis.
+
+
+
+
+THE ROMAN PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN.
+
+
+
+
+PART I.
+
++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_.
+
+
+
+
+PART II.
+
++HOW TO USE IT.+
+
+
+The directions now to be given may be fittingly introduced by a few
+paragraphs from Professor Munro’s pamphlet on the pronunciation of
+Latin, already more than once quoted from. He says--and part of this has
+been cited before:
+
+“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. With the same amount of evidence,
+direct and indirect, we have for Latin, it would not, I think, be worth
+anybody’s while to try to recover the pronunciation of French or
+English; it might, I think, be worth his while to try to recover that of
+German or Italian, in which sound and spelling accord more nearly, and
+accent obeys more determinable laws.”
+
+“I am convinced,” he says in another place, “that the mainstay of an
+efficient reform is the adoption essentially of the Italian vowel
+system: it combines beauty, firmness and precision in a degree not
+equalled by any other system of which I have any knowledge. The little
+ragged boys in the streets of Rome and Florence enunciate their vowels
+in a style of which princes might be proud.”
+
+And again:
+
+“I do not propose that every one should learn Italian in order to learn
+Latin. What I would suggest is, that those who know Italian should make
+use of their knowledge and should in many points take Italian sounds for
+the model to be followed; that those who do not know it should try to
+learn from others the sounds required, or such an approximation to them
+as may be possible in each case.”
+
+We may then sum up the results at which we have arrived in the following
+directions:
+
+First of all pay particular attention to the vowel sounds, to make them
+full and distinct, taking the Italian model, if you know Italian, and
+always observing strictly the quantity.
+
+Pronounce
+
+  +ā+ as in Italian _fato_; or as final +a+ in aha!
+
+  +ă+ as in Italian _fatto_; or as initial +a+ in aha! or as in fast
+  (not as in fat).
+
+  +ē+ as second +e+ in Italian _fedele_; or as in fête (not fate); or
+  as in vein.
+
+  +ĕ+ as in Italian _fetta_; or as in very.
+
+  +ī+ as first +i+ in Italian _timide_; or as in caprice.
+
+  +ĭ+ as second +i+ in Italian _timide_; or as in capricious.
+
+  +ĭ+ or +ŭ+, where the spelling varies between the two (e.g.
+  _maximus_, _maxumus_), as in German Müller.
+
+  +ō+ as first +o+ in Italian _orlo_; or as in more.
+
+  +ŏ+ as first +o+ in Italian _rotto_; or as in wholly (not as in
+  holly).
+
+  +ū+ as in Italian _rumore_; or as in rural,
+
+  +ŭ+ as in Italian _ruppe_; or as in puss (not as in fuss).
+
+Let +i+ in +vĭ+ before +d+, +t+, +m+, +r+ or +x+, in the first syllable
+of a word, be pronounced quite obscurely, somewhat as first +i+ in
+virgin.
+
+In the matter of diphthongs, be sure to take always the correct
+spelling, to begin with, and thus avoid what Munro justly terms “hateful
+barbarisms like _coelum_, _coena_, _moestus_.” Much time is wasted by
+students and bad habits are acquired in not finding, at the outset, the
+right spelling of each word and holding to it. This each student must do
+for himself, consulting a good dictionary, as editors and editions are
+not always to be depended on. Here it is the diphthongs that present the
+chief difficulty and call for the greatest care.
+
+In pronouncing diphthongs sound both vowels, but glide so rapidly from
+the first to the second as to offer to the ear but a single sound. In
+the publication of the Cambridge (Eng.) Philological Society on
+“Pronunciation of Latin in the Augustan Period,” the following
+directions are given:
+
+“The pronunciation of these diphthongs, of which the last three are
+extremely rare, is best learnt by first sounding each vowel separately
+and then running them together, +ae+ as ah-eh, +au+ as ah-oo, +oe+ as
+o-eh, +ei+ as eh-ee, +eu+ as eh-oo, and +ui+ as oo-ee.”
+
+Thus:
+
+  +ae+ (ah-éh) as in German _näher_; or as +ea+ in pear; or +ay+ in
+  aye (ever); (not like +ā+ in fate nor like +ai+ in aisle).
+
+  +ai+ (ah-ée) as in aye (yes).
+
+  +au+ (ah-óo) as in German _Haus_, with more of the +u+ sound than
+  +ou+ in house.
+
+  +ei+ (eh-ée) nearly as in veil. (In _dein_, _deinde_, the +ei+ is
+  not a diphthong, but the +e+, when not forming a distinct syllable,
+  is elided.)
+
+  +eu+ (eh-óo) as in Italian _Europa_. (In _neuter_ and _neutiquam_
+  elide the +e+.)
+
+  +oe+ (o-éh) nearly like German +ö+ in _Goethe_.
+
+  +oi+ is not found in the classical period. (In _proin_, _proinde_,
+  the +o+ is either elided or forms a distinct syllable. +ou+ in
+  _prout_ is not a diphthong; the +u+ is either elided or forms a
+  distinct syllable.)
+
+  +ui+ (oo-ée) as in cuirass.
+
+In the pronunciation of consonants certain points claim special
+attention. And first among these is the sounding of the doubled
+consonants. Whoever has heard Italian spoken recognizes one of its
+greatest beauties to be the distinctness, yet smoothness, with which its
++ll+ and +rr+ and +cc+--in short, all its doubled consonants--are
+pronounced. No feature of the language is more charming. And one who
+attempts the same in Latin and perseveres, with whatever difficulty and
+pains, will be amply rewarded in the music of the language.
+
+A good working rule for pronouncing doubled consonants is to hold the
+first until ready to pronounce the second: as in the words _we’ll lie
+till late_, not to be pronounced as _we lie till eight_.
+
+Next in importance, and, in New England at least, first in difficulty,
+is the trilling of the +r+. There can be no approximation to a
+satisfactory pronunciation of Latin until this +r+ is acquired; but the
+satisfaction in the result when accomplished is well worth all the pains
+taken.
+
+Another point to be observed is that the dentals +t+, +d+, +n+, +l+,
+require that the tongue touch the teeth, rather than the palate. Munro
+says: “+d+ and +t+ we treat with our usual slovenliness, and force them
+up to the roof of our mouth: we should make them real dentals, as no
+doubt the Romans made them, and then we shall see how readily _ad at_,
+_apud aput_, _illud illut_ and the like interchange.” This requires
+care, but amply repays the effort.
+
+It is necessary also to remember that +n+ before a guttural is
+pronounced as in the same position in English, e.g., in _ancora_ as in
+anchor; in _anxius_ as in anxious; in _relinquo_ as in relinquish.
+
+Remember to make +n+ before +f+ or +s+ a mere nasal, having as little
+prominence otherwise as possible, and to carefully lengthen the
+preceding vowel.
+
+Studiously observe the length of the vowel before the terminations
+_gnus_, _gna_, _gnum_.
+
+Remember that the final syllable in +m+, when not elided, is to be
+pronounced as lightly and rapidly as possible, the more lightly and
+indistinctly the better.
+
+Remember that +s+ must not be pronounced as +z+, except where it
+represents +z+ in Greek words, as Smyrna (Zmyrna), Smaragdus
+(Zmaragdus), otherwise always pronounce as in sis.
+
+Remember in pronouncing +v+ to direct the lower lip toward the upper
+lip, avoiding the upper teeth.
+
+In general, in pronouncing the consonants conform to the following
+scheme:
+
+  +b+ as in blab.
+
+  +b+ before +s+ or +t+, sharpened to +p+, as _urbs = urps_; _obtinuit
+  = optinuit_.
+
+  +c+ as sceptic (never as in sceptre).
+
+  +ch+ as in chemist (never as in cheer or chivalry).
+
+  +d+ as in did, but made more dental than in English.
+
+  +d+ final, before a word beginning with a consonant, in particles
+  especially, often sharpened to +t+ as in tid-bit (tit-bit).
+
+  +f+ as in fief, but with more breath than in English.
+
+  +g+ as in gig (never as in gin).
+
+  +gn+ in terminations _gnus_, _gna_, _gnum_, makes preceding vowel
+  long.
+
+  +h+ as in hah!
+
+  +i+ (consonant) as in onion.
+
+  +k+ as in kink.
+
+  +l+ initial and final, as in lull.
+
+  +l+ medial, as in lullaby, always more dental than in English.
+
+  +m+ initial and medial, as in membrane.
+
+  +m+ before +q+, nasalized.
+
+  +m+ final, when not elided, touched lightly and obscurely, somewhat
+  as in tandem (tandm); or as in the Englishman’s pronunciation of
+  Blenheim (Blenhm), Birmingham (Birminghm).
+
+  +n+ initial and final, as in nine.
+
+  +n+ medial, as in damnable, always more dental than in English.
+
+  +n+ before +c+, +g+, +q+, +x+, as in concord, anger, sinker,
+  relinquish, anxious, the tongue not touching the roof of the mouth.
+
+  +n+ before +f+ or +s+, nasal, lengthening the preceding vowel, as in
+  _renaissance_.
+
+  +p+ as in pup.
+
+  +q+ as in quick.
+
+  +r+ as in roar, but trilled, as in Italian or French. (This is most
+  important.)
+
+  +s+ as in sis (never as in his).
+
+  +t+ as in tot, but more dental than in English (never as in motion).
+
+  +th+ nearly as in then (never as in thin).
+
+  +v+ (+u+ consonant) nearly as in verve, but labial, rather than
+  labio-dental; like the German +w+ (not like the English +w+). Make
+  English +v+ as nearly as may be done without touching the lower lip
+  to the upper teeth.
+
+  +x+ as in six.
+
+  +z+ nearly as +dz+ in adze.
+
+  Doubled consonants to be pronounced each distinctly, by holding the
+  first until ready to pronounce the second.
+
+As Professor Ellis well puts it: “No relaxation of the organs, no puff
+of wind or grunt of voice should intervene between the two parts of a
+doubled consonant, which should more resemble separated parts of one
+articulation than two separate articulations.”
+
+“Duplication of consonants is consequently regarded simply as the
+energetic utterance of a single consonant.”
+
+
+ELISION.
+
+Professor Ellis believes that the +m+ was always omitted in speaking and
+the following consonant pronounced as if doubled (_quorum pars_ as
+_quoruppars_). Final +m+ at the end of a sentence he thinks was not
+heard at all. Where a vowel followed he thinks that the +m+ was not
+heard, the vowel before being slurred on to the initial vowel of the
+following word.
+
+The Cambridge (Eng.) Philological Society, however, takes the view that
+“final vowels (or diphthongs) when followed by vowels (or diphthongs)
+were not cut off, but lightly run on to the following word, as in
+Italian. But if the vowel was the same the effect was that of a single
+sound.”
+
+Professor Munro says:
+
+“In respect of elision I would only say that, by comparing Plautus with
+Ovid, we may see how much the elaborate cultivation of the language had
+tended to a more distinct sounding of final syllables; and that but for
+Virgil’s powerful influence the elision of long vowels would have almost
+ceased. Clearly we must not altogether pass over the elided vowel or
+syllable in +m+, except perhaps in the case of +ĕ+ in common words,
+_que_, _neque_, and the like.”
+
+This view, held by the Cambridge Philological Society and by Professor
+Munro, is the one generally accepted; the practice recommended by them
+is the one generally in use, and that which seems safe and suitable to
+follow. That is: Do not altogether pass over the elided vowel or
+syllable in +m+, except in cases of very close connection, in compound
+words or phrases, or when the final and initial vowel are the same, or
+in the case of +ĕ+ final in common words, as _que_, _neque_, and the
+like; but let the final vowel run lightly on to the following vowel as
+in Italian, and touch lightly and obscurely the final syllable in +m+.
+The +o+ or +e+ of _proin_, _proinde_, _prout_, _dein_, _deinde_,
+_neuter_, _neutiquam_, when not forming a distinct syllable, are to be
+treated as cases of elision between two words.
+
+
+QUANTITY.
+
+In the pronunciation of Latin the observance of quantity and of pitch
+are the two most difficult points of attainment; and they are the
+crucial test of good reading.
+
+The observance of quantity is no less important in prose than in verse.
+A little reflection will convince the dullest mind that the Romans did
+not pronounce a word one way in prose and another in verse; that we have
+not in poetry and prose two languages. Cicero and Quintilian both enjoin
+a due admixture of long and short syllables in prose as well as verse;
+and any one who takes delight in reading Latin will heartily agree with
+Professor Munro when he says: “For myself, by observing quantity, I seem
+to feel more keenly the beauty of Cicero’s style and Livy’s, as well as
+Virgil’s and Horace’s.”
+
+Therefore until one feels at home with the quantities, let him observe
+the rule of beating time in reading, to make sure that the long
+syllables get twice the time of the short ones. In this way he will soon
+have the pronunciation of each word correctly fixed in mind, and will
+not be obliged to think of his quantities in verse more than in prose.
+A long step has been taken in the enjoyment of Latin poetry when the
+reader does not have to be thinking of the ‘feet.’
+
+Young students particularly should be especially careful in the final
+syllable of the verse. Since, so far as the measure is concerned, there
+is no difference there between the long and the short syllable, the
+reader is apt to be careless as to the length of the syllable itself,
+and to make all final syllables long, even to the mispronouncing of the
+word, thereby both making a false quantity and otherwise injuring the
+effect of the verse, by importing into it a monotony foreign to the
+original. Does not Cicero himself say that a short syllable at the end
+of the verse is as if you ‘stood’ (came to a stand), but a long one as
+if you ‘sat down’?
+
+It is, in fact, in the pronouncing of final syllables everywhere that
+the most serious and persistent faults are found, _būs_ for _bŭs_ being
+one of the worst and most common cases. How much of the teacher’s time
+might be spared, for better things, if he did not have to correct _būs_
+into _bŭs!_
+
+The disposition to neglect the double and doubled consonants is another
+serious fault, as well as the slovenly pronunciation of two consonants,
+where the reader fails to give the time necessary to speak each
+distinctly, making false quantity and mispronunciation at the same time.
+
+In general, if two symbols are written we are to infer that two sounds
+were intended. The only exception to this is in the case of a few words
+where the spelling varies, as _casso_ or _caso_. In such cases we may
+suppose that the doubled consonant was only designed to indicate length.
+
+Another, apparent, exception is in the case of a mute followed by a
+liquid; but the mute and liquid are regularly sounded as one, and
+therefore do not affect the length of the preceding vowel. Sometimes,
+however, for the sake of time, the verse requires them to be pronounced
+separately. In this case each is to be given distinctly; the mute and
+liquid must not coalesce. For it must not be forgotten that, as a rule,
+the vowel before a mute followed by a liquid is short, in which case it
+must on no account be lengthened. Thus, ordinarily, we say _pă-tris_,
+but the verse may require _pat-ris_.
+
+Although the vowel before two consonants is generally short, we find, in
+some instances, a long vowel in this position. For example, it would
+appear that the vowel of the supine and cognate parts of the verb is
+long if the vowel of the present indicative, though short, is followed
+by a medial (+b+, +g+, +d+, +z+), as _āctus_, _lēctus_, from _ăgo_,
+_lĕgo_.
+
+Let it be remembered in the matter of _i_ consonant between two vowels,
+that we have really the force of two +ii+’s, as originally written, one,
+vowel, making a diphthong with the preceding, the other, consonant,
+introducing the new syllable; and that the same is true of the compounds
+of _jacio_, which should be written with a single +i+ but pronounced as
+with two, as _obicit_ (_objicit_).
+
+
+ACCENT.
+
+The question of accent presents little difficulty as to place, but some
+as to quality, and much as to kind.
+
+As to quality, it must be remembered that while the acute accent is
+found on syllables either short or long (by nature or position), and on
+either the penult or the antepenult, the circumflex is found only on
+long vowels, and (in words of more than one syllable) only on the
+penult, and then only in case the ultima is short. Thus, _spês_, but
+_dúx_; _lûnă_, but _lúnā_; _legâtus_, but _legáti_. In these examples
+the length of the syllable is the same and of course remains the same in
+inflection, but the quality of the accent changes. In the one case the
+voice is both raised and depressed on the same syllable, in the other it
+is only raised. As Professor Ellis puts it: “If the last syllable but
+one is long, it is spoken with a raised pitch, which is maintained
+throughout if its vowel is short, as: _véntōs_, or if the last syllable
+is long, as: _fāmāe_; but sinks immediately if its own vowel is long,
+and at the same time the vowel of the last syllable is short, as _fâmă_,
+to be distinguished from _fā́mā_.”
+
+But when we come to the question of the _kind_ of accent, we come upon
+the most serious matter practically in the pronunciation of Latin, and
+this because of a difficulty peculiar to the English speaking peoples.
+The English accent is one of _stress_, whereas the Roman is one of
+_pitch_.
+
+No one will disagree with Professor Ellis when he “assumes,” in his
+Quantitative Pronunciation of Latin, “that the Augustan Romans had _no_
+force accent, that is, that they did not, as we do, distinguish one
+syllable in every word _invariably_ by pronouncing it with greater
+force, that is, with greater loudness, than the others, but that the
+force varied according to the feeling of the moment, or the beat of the
+timekeeper in singing, and was used for purposes of expression; just as
+with us, musical pitch is free, that is, just as we may pronounce the
+same word with different musical pitches for its different syllables,
+and in fact are obliged to vary the musical pitch in interrogations and
+replies. The fixity of musical pitch and freedom of degrees of force in
+Latin, and the freedom of musical pitch and fixity of degrees of force
+in English sharply distinguish the two pronunciations even irrespective
+of quantity.”
+
+But this pitch accent, while alien to us, is not impossible of
+acquisition, and it is essential to any adequate rendering of any Latin
+writer, whether of prose or verse. Nor will the attainment be a work of
+indefinite time if one pursues with constancy some such course as the
+following, recommended by Professor Ellis:
+
+“The place of raised pitch,” he says, “must be strictly observed, and
+for this purpose the verses had better be first read in a kind of
+sing-song, the high pitched syllables being all of one pitch and the low
+pitched syllables being all of one pitch also, but about a musical
+‘fifth’ lower than the other, as if the latter were sung to the lowest
+note of the fourth string of a violin, and the former were sung to the
+lowest note of its third string.”
+
+   *   *   *
+
+In the foregoing pages an effort has been made to bring together
+compactly and to set forth concisely the nature of the ‘Roman method’ of
+pronouncing Latin; the reasons for adopting, and the simplest means of
+acquiring it. No attempt has been made at a philosophical or exhaustive
+treatment of the subject; but at the same time it is hoped that nothing
+unphilosophical has crept in, or anything been omitted, which might have
+been given, to render the subject intelligible and enable the
+intelligent reader to understand the points and be able to give a reason
+for each usage herein recommended.
+
+The main object in view in preparing this little book has been to help
+the teachers of Latin in the secondary schools, to furnish them
+something not too voluminous, yet as satisfactory as the nature of the
+case allows, upon a subject which the present diversity of opinion and
+practice has rendered unnecessarily obscure.
+
+To these teachers, then, a word from Professor Ellis may be fitly spoken
+in conclusion:
+
+“To teach a person to read prose _well_, even in his own language, is
+difficult, partly because he has seldom heard prose well read, though he
+is constantly hearing prose around him, intonated, but unrhythmical. In
+the case of a dead language, like the Latin, which the pupil never hears
+spoken, and seldom hears read, except by himself or his equally ignorant
+and hobbling fellow-scholars, this difficulty is inordinately increased.
+Let me once more impress on every teacher of Latin the _duty_ of himself
+learning to read Latin readily according to accent and quantity; the
+_duty_ of his reading out to his pupils, of his setting them a
+_pattern_, of his hearing that they follow it, of his correcting their
+mistakes, of his _leading_ them into right habits. If the quantitative
+pronunciation be adopted, no one will be fit to become a classical
+teacher who cannot read a simple Latin sentence decently, with a strict
+observance of that quantity by which alone the greatest of Latin orators
+regulated his own rhythms.”
+
+“All pronunciation is acquired by imitation, and it is not till after
+hearing a sound many times that we are able to grasp it sufficiently
+well to imitate. It is a mistake constantly made by teachers of language
+to suppose that a pupil knows by once hearing unfamiliar sounds, or even
+unfamiliar combinations of familiar sounds. When pupils are made to
+imitate too soon, they acquire an erroneous pronunciation, which they
+afterward hear constantly from themselves actually or mentally, and
+believe that they hear from the teacher during the small fraction of a
+second that each sound lasts, and hence the habits of these organs
+become fixed.”
+
+The following direction is of the utmost importance (Curwen’s “Standard
+Course,” p. 3): “The teacher never sings (speaks) _with_ his pupils, but
+sings (utters, reads, dictates) to them a brief and soft _pattern_. The
+first art of the pupil is to _listen well_ to the pattern, and then to
+imitate it exactly. He that listens best sings (speaks) best.”
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+           *       *       *       *
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+Errors and Inconsistencies (noted by transcriber)
+
+  [Keil. v. VI. p. 23.] F autem apud Aeolis
+    [_the letter is printed as an F, not a capital digamma_]
+  [Keil. v. II. p. 15.] ... Pro quo Caesar hanc [ϝ] figuram
+    [_the letter shown in brackets is printed as an upside-down
+    digamma_]
+  [Keil. v. II. p. 11.] ... apud veteres Graecos pro φ π et Ͱ
+    [_the third letter may not display on your computer; it is the
+    capital Heta, resembling the left half of capital H or Eta_]
+  +v+ (+u+ consonant) ... without touching the lower lip ...
+    [_text reads “touch-” at line-end_]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Roman Pronunciation of Latin, by 
+Frances E. Lord
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ROMAN PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN ***
+
+***** This file should be named 7528-0.txt or 7528-0.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        https://www.gutenberg.org/7/5/2/7528/
+
+Produced by Louise Hope, David Starner, Ted Garvin and
+the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
+https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from scanned
+images of public domain material from the Google Print
+project.)
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+https://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+https://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at https://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit https://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     https://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/7528-0.zip b/7528-0.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9dc751b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/7528-0.zip
diff --git a/7528-8.txt b/7528-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..36c5430
--- /dev/null
+++ b/7528-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,2782 @@
+Project Gutenberg's The Roman Pronunciation of Latin, by Frances E. Lord
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: The Roman Pronunciation of Latin
+
+Author: Frances E. Lord
+
+Posting Date: July 8, 2010 [EBook #7528]
+Release Date: February, 2005
+First Posted: May 14, 2003
+Last Updated: May 24, 2007
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ROMAN PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Louise Hope, David Starner, Ted Garvin and
+the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
+https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from scanned
+images of public domain material from the Google Print
+project.)
+
+
+
+
+
+[Transcriber's Note:
+
+This text is intended for users whose text readers cannot use the "real"
+(Unicode/UTF-8) version of the file.
+
+Vowels with breve ("short" mark) have been "unpacked" and shown as
+[)a], [)e]... They are rare.
+
+Vowels with macron ("long" mark, also rare) are normally shown with
+circumflex accent as � � � � �. The circumflex in its own right appears
+in a few short passages dealing with accent, always contrasted with
+acute � �; in these passages the long vowels are shown as [-a], [-o]
+to prevent ambiguity.
+
+Greek has been transliterated and shown between #marks#. Note that
+digamma is transliterated as #w# even though the author argues against
+this pronunciation.
+
+If any of these characters do not display properly--in particular, if
+the diacritic does not appear directly above the letter--or if the
+apostrophes and quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage,
+make sure your text reader's "character set" or "file encoding" is set
+to Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font. As a
+last resort, use the Latin-1 version of the file instead.
+
+Boldface is shown as +marks+, italics as _lines_.]
+
+
+
+
+  The
+
+  ROMAN PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN
+
+  Why we use it and How to use it
+
+
+  by
+
+  FRANCES E. LORD
+  Professor of Latin in Wellesley College
+
+
+
+  Boston, U.S.A.
+  Published by Ginn & Company
+  1894
+
+
+
+
+  Copyright, 1894
+  By FRANCES E. LORD
+  All Rights Reserved
+
+
+    [Publisher's Device: The Athen�um Press / Ginn and Company]
+
+
+
+
+_Contents_ (added by transcriber)
+
+  Introduction
+  PART I. Why We Use It.
+    Sounds of the Letters.
+      Vowels.
+      Diphthongs.
+      Consonants.
+    Quantity.
+    Accent.
+    Pitch.
+  PART II. How To Use It.
+    Elision.
+    Quantity.
+    Accent.
+
+
+
+
+INTRODUCTION.
+
+
+The argument brought against the 'Roman pronunciation' of Latin is
+twofold: the impossibility of perfect theoretical knowledge, and the
+difficulty of practical attainment.
+
+If to know the main features of the classic pronunciation of Latin were
+impossible, then our obvious course would be to refuse the attempt; to
+regard the language as in reality dead, and to make no pretence of
+reading it. This is in fact what the English scholars generally do. But
+if we may know substantially the sounds of the tongue in which Cicero
+spoke and Horace sung, shall we give up the delights of the melody and
+the rhythm and content ourselves with the thought form? Poetry
+especially does not exist apart from sound; sense alone will not
+constitute it, nor even sense and form without sound.
+
+But if it is true that the task of practical acquisition is, if not
+impossible, extremely difficult, 'the work of a lifetime,' as the
+objectors say, do the results justify the expenditure of time and labor?
+
+The position of the English-speaking peoples is not the same in this as
+that of Europeans. Europeans have not the same necessity to urge them to
+the 'Roman pronunciation.' Their own languages represent the Latin more
+or less adequately, in vowel sounds, in accent, and even, to some
+extent, in quantity; so that with them, all is not lost if they
+translate the sounds into their own tongues; while with us, nothing is
+left--sound, accent, quantity, all is gone; none of these is reproduced,
+or even suggested, in English.
+
+We believe a great part of our difficulty, in this country, lies in the
+fact that so few of those who study and teach Latin really know what the
+'Roman pronunciation' is, or how to use it. Inquiries are constantly
+being made by teachers, Why is this so? What authority is there for
+this? What reason for that?
+
+In the hope of giving help to those who desire to know the Why
+and the How this little compendium is made; in the interest of
+time-and-labor-saving uniformity, and in the belief that what cannot be
+fully known or perfectly acquired does still not prevent our perceiving,
+and showing in some worthy manner and to, some satisfactory degree, how,
+as well as what, the honey-tongued orators and divine poets of Rome
+spoke or sung.
+
+In the following pages free use has been made of the highest English
+authorities, of Oxford and Cambridge. Quotations will be found from
+Prof. H.�A.�J. Munro's pamphlet on "Pronunciation of Latin," and from
+Prof. A.�J. Ellis' book on "Quantitative Pronunciation of Latin"; also
+from the pamphlet issued by the Cambridge (Eng.) Philological Society,
+on the "Pronunciation of Latin in the Augustan Period."
+
+In the present compendium the chief points of divergence from the
+general American understanding of the 'Roman' method are in respect of
+the diphthong +ae+ and the consonantal +u+. In these cases the
+pronunciation herein recommended for the +ae+ is that favored by Roby,
+Munro, and Ellis, and adopted by the Cambridge Philological Society; for
+the +v+, or +u+ consonant, that advocated by Corssen, A.�J. Ellis, and
+Robinson Ellis.
+
+
+
+
+THE ROMAN PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN.
+
+
+
+
+PART I.
+
++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 #ou#:
+
+  [Id. ib. vi. 10.] +U+ litteram quotiens enuntiamus, productis et
+  coeuntibus labris efferemus .�.�. quam nisi per #ou# 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 #mustai# piei, and _mystae_:
+_Paeligni_ is reproduced in Strabo by #Pelignoi#: Cicero, Virgil,
+Festus, and Servius all alike give _caestos_ for #kestos#: 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 +[)e]+: _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 (#sk�n�# is always _scaena_): and it is from
+this form _plaenus_ that in Italian, contrary to the usual law of long
+Latin +e+, we have _pi�no_ 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,
+  #�# 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 +�+. 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+: _�ro �de_: I would pronounce thus in Latin:
+_pl�strum_, _Cl�dius_, _c�rus_. Perhaps, too, the fact that _gloria_,
+_vittoria_ and the common termination _-orio_, have in Italian the open
++o+, might show that the corresponding +�+ 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 _h�c_, _h�c_, _s�c_, _h�c_ 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 #g# 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 a�na."
+
+  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 #�s#); _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 _ca�on_.)
+
++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 +[)a]+ 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 #w#, nostri _vau_ vocant, et alii _digamma_; ea per se
+  scripta non facit syllabam, anteposita autem vocali facit, ut
+  #wamaxa#, #wek�bolos# et #welen�#. 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 #bau# 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 #w# _digamma_, id est _vau_, ab ipsius voce profectum
+  teste Varrone et Didymo, qui id ei nomen esse ostendunt. Pro quo
+  Caesar hanc [#w#] figuram scribi voluit, quod quamvis illi recte
+  visum est tamen consuetudo antiqua superavit. Adeo autem hoc verum
+  est quod pro Aeolico _digamma_ #w# +u+ ponitur.
+
+What then was the sound of this Aeolic _digamma_ or #bau#?
+
+Priscian says:
+
+  [Keil. v.�II. p.�11.] #w# 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 #ph# #p# et #Heta#; unde nunc
+  quoque in Graecis nominibus antiquam scripturam servamus, pro #ph#
+  +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_ (#w#) in sound.
+
+Now the office of the Greek _digamma_ was apparently manifold. It stood
+for #s#, #b# (Eng. +v+), #g#, #ch#, #ph#, 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 #b# (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
+  #w# _digamma_ quotiens ab #r# incipit dictio quae solet aspirari, ut
+  #rh�t�r#, #br�t�r# dicunt, quod _digamma_ nisi vocali praeponi et in
+  principio syllabae non potest. Ideo autem locum transmutavit, quia
+  +b+ vel _digamma_ post #r# 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 silu[��];"
+
+  [Transcriber's Note: Letter � printed with dieresis.]
+
+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 w[)i]nd with m�nd, 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 _oeuf_; _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 #ouai#). 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: +[)u]a [)u]e [)u]i
+[)u]o+, +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
+#b# for +u+ consonant in inscriptions and in writers of the first
+century. For instance, _Nerva_ and _Severus_ in contemporary
+inscriptions are written both with #ou# and with #b#: #Neroua, Nerba#;
+#Seou�ros, Seb�ros#. And in Plutarch we find numerous instances of #b#
+taking the place of #ou#.
+
+It is true that the instances in which we find #b# taking the place of
+#ou# in the first century, and earlier, are decidedly in the minority,
+but when we recollect that #ou# 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 #b# 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
+#b# (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 #x#, 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 _pon�_ et _erg�_, quod apud Latinos in ultima
+  syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc est
+  quod diximus _pon�_ et _erg�_. Ideo _pon�_ dicimus ne putetur verbum
+  esse imperativi modi, hoc est _p�ne_; _erg�_ ideo dicimus ne putetur
+  conjunctio rationalis, quod est _�rgo_.
+
+  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 _p�x_, _f�x_, _p�x_, _n�x_, _d�x_, _n�x_, quae
+  etiam tali accentu pronuntianda est, quamvis sit longa positione,
+  quia naturaliter brevis est. Quae vero naturaliter producta est
+  circumflexo accentu exprimenda est ut, _r�s_, _d�s_, _sp�s_.
+  Dissyllabae vero quae priorem productam habent et posteriorem
+  correptam, priorem syllabam circumflectunt, ut _m�ta_, _Cr�ta_.
+  Illae vero quae sunt ambae longae vel prior brevis et ulterior longa
+  acuto accento pronuntiandae sunt, ut _n�pos_, _l�ges_, _r�ges_. 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
+  _T�llius_, _Host�lius_. Nam paenultima, si positione longa fuerit,
+  acuetur, antepaenultima vero gravabitur, ut _Cat�llus_, _Met�llus_.
+  Si vero ex muta et liquida longa in versu esse constat, in oratione
+  quoque accentum mutat, ut _lat�brae_, _ten�brae_. Syllaba vero
+  ultima, si brevis sit et paenultimam naturaliter longam habuerit
+  ipsam paenultimam circumflectit, ut _Ceth�gus_, _per�sus_. Ultima
+  quoque, si naturaliter longa fuerit, paenultimam acuet, ut
+  _Ath�nae_, _Myc�nae_. 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 _�nte_ and _ant�_; or between the
+same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as _r�ges_ and _reg�s_; and
+in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as _fin�t_ (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 _p�rfect_ or _perf�ct_). 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 _qui�sco_ or _qui�sco_, _[)a]ctito_ or _�ctito_:
+
+  [Transcriber's Note: The contrasts are circumflex vs. acute (quiesco),
+  long vs. short (actito).]
+
+  [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 #eschon kai eskon#, Ionice a verbo #esch� isch�#,
+  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_.
+
+
+
+
+PART II.
+
++HOW TO USE IT.+
+
+
+The directions now to be given may be fittingly introduced by a few
+paragraphs from Professor Munro's pamphlet on the pronunciation of
+Latin, already more than once quoted from. He says--and part of this has
+been cited before:
+
+"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. With the same amount of evidence,
+direct and indirect, we have for Latin, it would not, I�think, be worth
+anybody's while to try to recover the pronunciation of French or
+English; it might, I�think, be worth his while to try to recover that of
+German or Italian, in which sound and spelling accord more nearly, and
+accent obeys more determinable laws."
+
+"I am convinced," he says in another place, "that the mainstay of an
+efficient reform is the adoption essentially of the Italian vowel
+system: it combines beauty, firmness and precision in a degree not
+equalled by any other system of which I have any knowledge. The little
+ragged boys in the streets of Rome and Florence enunciate their vowels
+in a style of which princes might be proud."
+
+And again:
+
+"I do not propose that every one should learn Italian in order to learn
+Latin. What I would suggest is, that those who know Italian should make
+use of their knowledge and should in many points take Italian sounds for
+the model to be followed; that those who do not know it should try to
+learn from others the sounds required, or such an approximation to them
+as may be possible in each case."
+
+We may then sum up the results at which we have arrived in the following
+directions:
+
+First of all pay particular attention to the vowel sounds, to make them
+full and distinct, taking the Italian model, if you know Italian, and
+always observing strictly the quantity.
+
+Pronounce
+
+  +�+ as in Italian _fato_; or as final +a+ in aha!
+
+  +[)a]+ as in Italian _fatto_; or as initial +a+ in aha! or as in fast
+  (not as in fat).
+
+  +�+ as second +e+ in Italian _fedele_; or as in f�te (not fate); or
+  as in vein.
+
+  +[)e]+ as in Italian _fetta_; or as in very.
+
+  +�+ as first +i+ in Italian _timide_; or as in caprice.
+
+  +[)i]+ as second +i+ in Italian _timide_; or as in capricious.
+
+  +[)i]+ or +[)u]+, where the spelling varies between the two (e.g.
+  _maximus_, _maxumus_), as in German M�ller.
+
+  +�+ as first +o+ in Italian _orlo_; or as in more.
+
+  +[)o]+ as first +o+ in Italian _rotto_; or as in wholly (not as in
+  holly).
+
+  +�+ as in Italian _rumore_; or as in rural,
+
+  +[)u]+ as in Italian _ruppe_; or as in puss (not as in fuss).
+
+Let +i+ in +v[)i]+ before +d+, +t+, +m+, +r+ or +x+, in the first
+syllable of a word, be pronounced quite obscurely, somewhat as first +i+
+in virgin.
+
+In the matter of diphthongs, be sure to take always the correct
+spelling, to begin with, and thus avoid what Munro justly terms "hateful
+barbarisms like _coelum_, _coena_, _moestus_." Much time is wasted by
+students and bad habits are acquired in not finding, at the outset, the
+right spelling of each word and holding to it. This each student must do
+for himself, consulting a good dictionary, as editors and editions are
+not always to be depended on. Here it is the diphthongs that present the
+chief difficulty and call for the greatest care.
+
+In pronouncing diphthongs sound both vowels, but glide so rapidly from
+the first to the second as to offer to the ear but a single sound. In
+the publication of the Cambridge (Eng.) Philological Society on
+"Pronunciation of Latin in the Augustan Period," the following
+directions are given:
+
+"The pronunciation of these diphthongs, of which the last three are
+extremely rare, is best learnt by first sounding each vowel separately
+and then running them together, +ae+ as ah-eh, +au+ as ah-oo, +oe+ as
+o-eh, +ei+ as eh-ee, +eu+ as eh-oo, and +ui+ as oo-ee."
+
+Thus:
+
+  +ae+ (ah-�h) as in German _n�her_; or as +ea+ in pear; or +ay+ in
+  aye (ever); (not like +�+ in fate nor like +ai+ in aisle).
+
+  +ai+ (ah-�e) as in aye (yes).
+
+  +au+ (ah-�o) as in German _Haus_, with more of the +u+ sound than
+  +ou+ in house.
+
+  +ei+ (eh-�e) nearly as in veil. (In _dein_, _deinde_, the +ei+ is
+  not a diphthong, but the +e+, when not forming a distinct syllable,
+  is elided.)
+
+  +eu+ (eh-�o) as in Italian _Europa_. (In _neuter_ and _neutiquam_
+  elide the +e+.)
+
+  +oe+ (o-�h) nearly like German +�+ in _Goethe_.
+
+  +oi+ is not found in the classical period. (In _proin_, _proinde_,
+  the +o+ is either elided or forms a distinct syllable. +ou+ in
+  _prout_ is not a diphthong; the +u+ is either elided or forms a
+  distinct syllable.)
+
+  +ui+ (oo-�e) as in cuirass.
+
+In the pronunciation of consonants certain points claim special
+attention. And first among these is the sounding of the doubled
+consonants. Whoever has heard Italian spoken recognizes one of its
+greatest beauties to be the distinctness, yet smoothness, with which its
++ll+ and +rr+ and +cc+--in short, all its doubled consonants--are
+pronounced. No feature of the language is more charming. And one who
+attempts the same in Latin and perseveres, with whatever difficulty and
+pains, will be amply rewarded in the music of the language.
+
+A good working rule for pronouncing doubled consonants is to hold the
+first until ready to pronounce the second: as in the words _we'll lie
+till late_, not to be pronounced as _we lie till eight_.
+
+Next in importance, and, in New England at least, first in difficulty,
+is the trilling of the +r+. There can be no approximation to a
+satisfactory pronunciation of Latin until this +r+ is acquired; but the
+satisfaction in the result when accomplished is well worth all the pains
+taken.
+
+Another point to be observed is that the dentals +t+, +d+, +n+, +l+,
+require that the tongue touch the teeth, rather than the palate. Munro
+says: "+d+ and +t+ we treat with our usual slovenliness, and force them
+up to the roof of our mouth: we should make them real dentals, as no
+doubt the Romans made them, and then we shall see how readily _ad at_,
+_apud aput_, _illud illut_ and the like interchange." This requires
+care, but amply repays the effort.
+
+It is necessary also to remember that +n+ before a guttural is
+pronounced as in the same position in English, e.g., in _ancora_ as in
+anchor; in _anxius_ as in anxious; in _relinquo_ as in relinquish.
+
+Remember to make +n+ before +f+ or +s+ a mere nasal, having as little
+prominence otherwise as possible, and to carefully lengthen the
+preceding vowel.
+
+Studiously observe the length of the vowel before the terminations
+_gnus_, _gna_, _gnum_.
+
+Remember that the final syllable in +m+, when not elided, is to be
+pronounced as lightly and rapidly as possible, the more lightly and
+indistinctly the better.
+
+Remember that +s+ must not be pronounced as +z+, except where it
+represents +z+ in Greek words, as Smyrna (Zmyrna), Smaragdus
+(Zmaragdus), otherwise always pronounce as in sis.
+
+Remember in pronouncing +v+ to direct the lower lip toward the upper
+lip, avoiding the upper teeth.
+
+In general, in pronouncing the consonants conform to the following
+scheme:
+
+  +b+ as in blab.
+
+  +b+ before +s+ or +t+, sharpened to +p+, as _urbs = urps_; _obtinuit
+  = optinuit_.
+
+  +c+ as sceptic (never as in sceptre).
+
+  +ch+ as in chemist (never as in cheer or chivalry).
+
+  +d+ as in did, but made more dental than in English.
+
+  +d+ final, before a word beginning with a consonant, in particles
+  especially, often sharpened to +t+ as in tid-bit (tit-bit).
+
+  +f+ as in fief, but with more breath than in English.
+
+  +g+ as in gig (never as in gin).
+
+  +gn+ in terminations _gnus_, _gna_, _gnum_, makes preceding vowel
+  long.
+
+  +h+ as in hah!
+
+  +i+ (consonant) as in onion.
+
+  +k+ as in kink.
+
+  +l+ initial and final, as in lull.
+
+  +l+ medial, as in lullaby, always more dental than in English.
+
+  +m+ initial and medial, as in membrane.
+
+  +m+ before +q+, nasalized.
+
+  +m+ final, when not elided, touched lightly and obscurely, somewhat
+  as in tandem (tandm); or as in the Englishman's pronunciation of
+  Blenheim (Blenhm), Birmingham (Birminghm).
+
+  +n+ initial and final, as in nine.
+
+  +n+ medial, as in damnable, always more dental than in English.
+
+  +n+ before +c+, +g+, +q+, +x+, as in concord, anger, sinker,
+  relinquish, anxious, the tongue not touching the roof of the mouth.
+
+  +n+ before +f+ or +s+, nasal, lengthening the preceding vowel, as in
+  _renaissance_.
+
+  +p+ as in pup.
+
+  +q+ as in quick.
+
+  +r+ as in roar, but trilled, as in Italian or French. (This is most
+  important.)
+
+  +s+ as in sis (never as in his).
+
+  +t+ as in tot, but more dental than in English (never as in motion).
+
+  +th+ nearly as in then (never as in thin).
+
+  +v+ (+u+ consonant) nearly as in verve, but labial, rather than
+  labio-dental; like the German +w+ (not like the English +w+). Make
+  English +v+ as nearly as may be done without touching the lower lip
+  to the upper teeth.
+
+  +x+ as in six.
+
+  +z+ nearly as +dz+ in adze.
+
+  Doubled consonants to be pronounced each distinctly, by holding the
+  first until ready to pronounce the second.
+
+As Professor Ellis well puts it: "No relaxation of the organs, no puff
+of wind or grunt of voice should intervene between the two parts of a
+doubled consonant, which should more resemble separated parts of one
+articulation than two separate articulations."
+
+"Duplication of consonants is consequently regarded simply as the
+energetic utterance of a single consonant."
+
+
+ELISION.
+
+Professor Ellis believes that the +m+ was always omitted in speaking and
+the following consonant pronounced as if doubled (_quorum pars_ as
+_quoruppars_). Final +m+ at the end of a sentence he thinks was not
+heard at all. Where a vowel followed he thinks that the +m+ was not
+heard, the vowel before being slurred on to the initial vowel of the
+following word.
+
+The Cambridge (Eng.) Philological Society, however, takes the view that
+"final vowels (or�diphthongs) when followed by vowels (or�diphthongs)
+were not cut off, but lightly run on to the following word, as in
+Italian. But if the vowel was the same the effect was that of a single
+sound."
+
+Professor Munro says:
+
+"In respect of elision I would only say that, by comparing Plautus with
+Ovid, we may see how much the elaborate cultivation of the language had
+tended to a more distinct sounding of final syllables; and that but for
+Virgil's powerful influence the elision of long vowels would have almost
+ceased. Clearly we must not altogether pass over the elided vowel or
+syllable in +m+, except perhaps in the case of +[)e]+ in common words,
+_que_, _neque_, and the like."
+
+This view, held by the Cambridge Philological Society and by Professor
+Munro, is the one generally accepted; the practice recommended by them
+is the one generally in use, and that which seems safe and suitable to
+follow. That is: Do not altogether pass over the elided vowel or
+syllable in +m+, except in cases of very close connection, in compound
+words or phrases, or when the final and initial vowel are the same, or
+in the case of +[)e]+ final in common words, as _que_, _neque_, and the
+like; but let the final vowel run lightly on to the following vowel as
+in Italian, and touch lightly and obscurely the final syllable in +m+.
+The +o+ or +e+ of _proin_, _proinde_, _prout_, _dein_, _deinde_,
+_neuter_, _neutiquam_, when not forming a distinct syllable, are to be
+treated as cases of elision between two words.
+
+
+QUANTITY.
+
+In the pronunciation of Latin the observance of quantity and of pitch
+are the two most difficult points of attainment; and they are the
+crucial test of good reading.
+
+The observance of quantity is no less important in prose than in verse.
+A�little reflection will convince the dullest mind that the Romans did
+not pronounce a word one way in prose and another in verse; that we have
+not in poetry and prose two languages. Cicero and Quintilian both enjoin
+a due admixture of long and short syllables in prose as well as verse;
+and any one who takes delight in reading Latin will heartily agree with
+Professor Munro when he says: "For myself, by observing quantity, I�seem
+to feel more keenly the beauty of Cicero's style and Livy's, as well as
+Virgil's and Horace's."
+
+Therefore until one feels at home with the quantities, let him observe
+the rule of beating time in reading, to make sure that the long
+syllables get twice the time of the short ones. In this way he will soon
+have the pronunciation of each word correctly fixed in mind, and will
+not be obliged to think of his quantities in verse more than in prose.
+A�long step has been taken in the enjoyment of Latin poetry when the
+reader does not have to be thinking of the 'feet.'
+
+Young students particularly should be especially careful in the final
+syllable of the verse. Since, so far as the measure is concerned, there
+is no difference there between the long and the short syllable, the
+reader is apt to be careless as to the length of the syllable itself,
+and to make all final syllables long, even to the mispronouncing of the
+word, thereby both making a false quantity and otherwise injuring the
+effect of the verse, by importing into it a monotony foreign to the
+original. Does not Cicero himself say that a short syllable at the end
+of the verse is as if you 'stood' (came to a stand), but a long one as
+if you 'sat down'?
+
+It is, in fact, in the pronouncing of final syllables everywhere that
+the most serious and persistent faults are found, _b�s_ for _b[)u]s_
+being one of the worst and most common cases. How much of the teacher's
+time might be spared, for better things, if he did not have to correct
+_b�s_ into _b[)u]s!_
+
+The disposition to neglect the double and doubled consonants is another
+serious fault, as well as the slovenly pronunciation of two consonants,
+where the reader fails to give the time necessary to speak each
+distinctly, making false quantity and mispronunciation at the same time.
+
+In general, if two symbols are written we are to infer that two sounds
+were intended. The only exception to this is in the case of a few words
+where the spelling varies, as _casso_ or _caso_. In such cases we may
+suppose that the doubled consonant was only designed to indicate length.
+
+Another, apparent, exception is in the case of a mute followed by a
+liquid; but the mute and liquid are regularly sounded as one, and
+therefore do not affect the length of the preceding vowel. Sometimes,
+however, for the sake of time, the verse requires them to be pronounced
+separately. In this case each is to be given distinctly; the mute and
+liquid must not coalesce. For it must not be forgotten that, as a rule,
+the vowel before a mute followed by a liquid is short, in which case it
+must on no account be lengthened. Thus, ordinarily, we say _p[)a]-tris_,
+but the verse may require _pat-ris_.
+
+Although the vowel before two consonants is generally short, we find, in
+some instances, a�long vowel in this position. For example, it would
+appear that the vowel of the supine and cognate parts of the verb is
+long if the vowel of the present indicative, though short, is followed
+by a medial (+b+, +g+, +d+, +z+), as _�ctus_, _l�ctus_, from _[)a]go_,
+_l[)e]go_.
+
+Let it be remembered in the matter of _i_ consonant between two vowels,
+that we have really the force of two +ii+'s, as originally written, one,
+vowel, making a diphthong with the preceding, the other, consonant,
+introducing the new syllable; and that the same is true of the compounds
+of _jacio_, which should be written with a single +i+ but pronounced as
+with two, as _obicit_ (_objicit_).
+
+
+ACCENT.
+
+The question of accent presents little difficulty as to place, but some
+as to quality, and much as to kind.
+
+As to quality, it must be remembered that while the acute accent is
+found on syllables either short or long (by�nature or position), and on
+either the penult or the antepenult, the circumflex is found only on
+long vowels, and (in�words of more than one syllable) only on the
+penult, and then only in case the ultima is short. Thus, _sp�s_, but
+_d�x_; _l�n[)a]_, but _l�n[-a]_; _leg�tus_, but _leg�ti_. In these
+examples the length of the syllable is the same and of course remains
+the same in inflection, but the quality of the accent changes. In the
+one case the voice is both raised and depressed on the same syllable,
+in the other it is only raised. As Professor Ellis puts it: "If the last
+syllable but one is long, it is spoken with a raised pitch, which is
+maintained throughout if its vowel is short, as: _v�nt[-o]s_, or if the
+last syllable is long, as: _f[-a]m[-a]e_; but sinks immediately if its
+own vowel is long, and at the same time the vowel of the last syllable
+is short, as _f�m[)a]_, to be distinguished from _f[�-a]m[-a]_."
+
+But when we come to the question of the _kind_ of accent, we come upon
+the most serious matter practically in the pronunciation of Latin, and
+this because of a difficulty peculiar to the English speaking peoples.
+The English accent is one of _stress_, whereas the Roman is one of
+_pitch_.
+
+No one will disagree with Professor Ellis when he "assumes," in his
+Quantitative Pronunciation of Latin, "that the Augustan Romans had _no_
+force accent, that is, that they did not, as we do, distinguish one
+syllable in every word _invariably_ by pronouncing it with greater
+force, that is, with greater loudness, than the others, but that the
+force varied according to the feeling of the moment, or the beat of the
+timekeeper in singing, and was used for purposes of expression; just as
+with us, musical pitch is free, that is, just as we may pronounce the
+same word with different musical pitches for its different syllables,
+and in fact are obliged to vary the musical pitch in interrogations and
+replies. The fixity of musical pitch and freedom of degrees of force in
+Latin, and the freedom of musical pitch and fixity of degrees of force
+in English sharply distinguish the two pronunciations even irrespective
+of quantity."
+
+But this pitch accent, while alien to us, is not impossible of
+acquisition, and it is essential to any adequate rendering of any Latin
+writer, whether of prose or verse. Nor will the attainment be a work of
+indefinite time if one pursues with constancy some such course as the
+following, recommended by Professor Ellis:
+
+"The place of raised pitch," he says, "must be strictly observed, and
+for this purpose the verses had better be first read in a kind of
+sing-song, the high pitched syllables being all of one pitch and the low
+pitched syllables being all of one pitch also, but about a musical
+'fifth' lower than the other, as if the latter were sung to the lowest
+note of the fourth string of a violin, and the former were sung to the
+lowest note of its third string."
+
+   *   *   *
+
+In the foregoing pages an effort has been made to bring together
+compactly and to set forth concisely the nature of the 'Roman method' of
+pronouncing Latin; the reasons for adopting, and the simplest means of
+acquiring it. No attempt has been made at a philosophical or exhaustive
+treatment of the subject; but at the same time it is hoped that nothing
+unphilosophical has crept in, or anything been omitted, which might have
+been given, to render the subject intelligible and enable the
+intelligent reader to understand the points and be able to give a reason
+for each usage herein recommended.
+
+The main object in view in preparing this little book has been to help
+the teachers of Latin in the secondary schools, to furnish them
+something not too voluminous, yet as satisfactory as the nature of the
+case allows, upon a subject which the present diversity of opinion and
+practice has rendered unnecessarily obscure.
+
+To these teachers, then, a word from Professor Ellis may be fitly spoken
+in conclusion:
+
+"To teach a person to read prose _well_, even in his own language, is
+difficult, partly because he has seldom heard prose well read, though he
+is constantly hearing prose around him, intonated, but unrhythmical. In
+the case of a dead language, like the Latin, which the pupil never hears
+spoken, and seldom hears read, except by himself or his equally ignorant
+and hobbling fellow-scholars, this difficulty is inordinately increased.
+Let me once more impress on every teacher of Latin the _duty_ of himself
+learning to read Latin readily according to accent and quantity; the
+_duty_ of his reading out to his pupils, of his setting them a
+_pattern_, of his hearing that they follow it, of his correcting their
+mistakes, of his _leading_ them into right habits. If the quantitative
+pronunciation be adopted, no one will be fit to become a classical
+teacher who cannot read a simple Latin sentence decently, with a strict
+observance of that quantity by which alone the greatest of Latin orators
+regulated his own rhythms."
+
+"All pronunciation is acquired by imitation, and it is not till after
+hearing a sound many times that we are able to grasp it sufficiently
+well to imitate. It is a mistake constantly made by teachers of language
+to suppose that a pupil knows by once hearing unfamiliar sounds, or even
+unfamiliar combinations of familiar sounds. When pupils are made to
+imitate too soon, they acquire an erroneous pronunciation, which they
+afterward hear constantly from themselves actually or mentally, and
+believe that they hear from the teacher during the small fraction of a
+second that each sound lasts, and hence the habits of these organs
+become fixed."
+
+The following direction is of the utmost importance (Curwen's "Standard
+Course," p.�3): "The teacher never sings (speaks) _with_ his pupils, but
+sings (utters, reads, dictates) to them a brief and soft _pattern_. The
+first art of the pupil is to _listen well_ to the pattern, and then to
+imitate it exactly. He that listens best sings (speaks) best."
+
+
+       *       *       *       *       *
+           *       *       *       *
+       *       *       *       *       *
+
+
+Errors and Inconsistencies (noted by transcriber)
+
+  [Keil. v.�VI. p.�23.] F autem apud Aeolis
+    [_the letter is printed as an F, not a capital digamma_]
+  [Keil. v. II. p. 15.] ... Pro quo Caesar hanc [#w#] figuram
+    [_the letter shown in brackets is printed as an upside-down
+    digamma_]
+  [Keil. v.�II. p.�11.] ... apud veteres Graecos pro #ph# #p# et #Heta#
+    [_the third letter is capital Heta, resembling the left half of
+    capital H or Eta_]
+  +v+ (+u+ consonant) ... without touching the lower lip ...
+    [_text reads "touch-" at line-end_]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Roman Pronunciation of Latin, by 
+Frances E. Lord
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ROMAN PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN ***
+
+***** This file should be named 7528-8.txt or 7528-8.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        https://www.gutenberg.org/7/5/2/7528/
+
+Produced by Louise Hope, David Starner, Ted Garvin and
+the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
+https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from scanned
+images of public domain material from the Google Print
+project.)
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+https://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+https://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at https://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit https://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     https://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/7528-8.zip b/7528-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4f17102
--- /dev/null
+++ b/7528-8.zip
diff --git a/7528-h.zip b/7528-h.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e733767
--- /dev/null
+++ b/7528-h.zip
diff --git a/7528-h/7528-h.htm b/7528-h/7528-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3447adc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/7528-h/7528-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,3716 @@
+
+<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
+<html>
+<head>
+<title>The Roman Pronunciation of Latin</title>
+<meta http-equiv = "Content-Type" content = "text/html; charset=UTF-8">
+
+<style type = "text/css">
+
+
+/* standard styles */
+
+body {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;}
+
+div.titlepage, div.chapter {margin-top: 4em; margin-bottom: 4em;}
+
+
+hr {width: 80%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;
+text-align: center;}
+hr.mid {width: 40%;}
+hr.micro {width: 10%; margin-top: .5em; margin-bottom: .5em;}
+
+small {font-size: 88%;}
+
+div.contents a {text-decoration: none}
+
+h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 {text-align: center; font-style: normal;
+font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.5; margin-top: 1em;
+margin-bottom: 1em;}
+
+div.titlepage h1, div.titlepage h2 {margin-top: 2em;
+margin-bottom: 2em;}
+div.titlepage h3, div.titlepage h4, div.titlepage h5, div.titlepage h6
+{margin-top: .5em; margin-bottom: .5em; line-height: 1.5;}
+
+h1 {font-size: 200%;}
+h2 {font-size: 175%;}
+h3 {font-size: 150%; margin-top: 2em; line-height: 2em;}
+h4, h1.four {font-size: 120%; margin-top: 2em;}
+h5 {font-size: 100%;}
+h6, h3.six {font-size: 85%;}
+
+h4 + h4 {margin-top: 1em;}
+
+
+p, blockquote {margin-top: .5em; margin-bottom: 0; line-height: 1.2;}
+blockquote {margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; font-size: 92%;}
+blockquote + p, div.verse + p {margin-top: 1.15em;}
+p + blockquote, p + div.verse {margin-top: 1.3em;}
+
+p.illustration {text-align: center; margin-top: 1em;
+margin-bottom: 1em;}
+
+div.verse {margin: .5em 4em; font-size: 92%;}
+div.verse p {margin-top: 0; margin-left: 4em; text-indent: -4em;}
+div.verse p.indent {margin-left: 5em;}
+
+div.list {margin: .5em 1em; font-size: 92%;}
+div.list p {margin-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em; margin-top: .2em;}
+
+p.center {text-align: center;}
+
+p.inset, div.inset {padding-left: 1.5em;}
+
+/* tables */
+
+table {margin-left: 1em; margin-right: auto; margin-top: .5em;
+margin-bottom: .5em; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 92%;
+font-family: inherit;}
+
+td {vertical-align: top; text-align: left; padding: .1em .2em;}
+td.letter {text-align: right; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.2;}
+table p {margin-top: 0; margin-left: 1em; text-indent: -1em;}
+
+
+/* text formatting */
+
+span.smallroman {text-transform: lowercase; font-variant: small-caps;}
+.smallcaps, span.firstword {font-variant: small-caps;}
+
+span.smaller {font-size: 88%;}
+span.larger {font-size: 112%;}
+span.extended {letter-spacing: 0.2em; margin-right: -.2em;}
+
+/* greek translit */
+
+span.greek {font-family: serif, sans-serif;}
+
+/* correction popup */
+
+ins.correction {text-decoration: none; border-bottom: thin dotted red;}
+
+/* page number */
+
+span.pagenum {position: absolute; right: 2%; font-size: smaller;
+font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-align: right;
+text-indent: 0;}
+
+/* Transcriber's Note */
+
+div.mynote {background-color: #DDE; color: #000;
+font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 90%;
+margin: 1em 5%; padding: .5em 1em 1em;}
+div.mynote a {text-decoration: none;}
+
+div.contents {border: 3px ridge #A9F; font-family: sans-serif;
+margin-top: 3em; margin-bottom: 3em; padding: .5em 2em 1em;
+font-size: 95%; width: 18em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;}
+div.contents p {margin-top: .3em;}
+
+</style>
+</head>
+
+<body>
+
+
+<pre>
+
+Project Gutenberg's The Roman Pronunciation of Latin, by Frances E. Lord
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: The Roman Pronunciation of Latin
+
+Author: Frances E. Lord
+
+Posting Date: July 8, 2010 [EBook #7528]
+Release Date: February, 2005
+First Posted: May 14, 2003
+Last Updated: May 24, 2007
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: UTF-8
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ROMAN PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Louise Hope, David Starner, Ted Garvin and
+the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
+https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from scanned
+images of public domain material from the Google Print
+project.)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+</pre>
+
+<div class = "mynote">
+<p><a name = "start" id = "start">This text</a> includes characters that
+require UTF-8 (Unicode) file encoding, including a handful of Greek
+words and letters:</p>
+
+<p class = "inset">
+ā ē ī ō ū (vowels with macron or “long” mark)<br>
+ă ĕ ĭ ŏ ŭ (vowels with breve or “short” mark)<br>
+φ χ π ϝ<br>
+μύσται, Πελιγνόι, κεστός</p>
+
+<p>If any of these characters do not display properly&mdash;in
+particular, if the diacritic does not appear directly above the
+letter&mdash;or if the apostrophes and quotation marks in this paragraph
+appear as garbage, you may have an incompatible browser or unavailable
+fonts. First, make sure that the browser’s “character set” or “file
+encoding” is set to Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change your
+browser’s default font.</p>
+
+<p>Typographical errors are shown in the text with <ins class =
+"correction" title = "like this">mouse-hover popups</ins>.
+Transliterations of Greek words are shown similarly.</p>
+</div>
+
+<div class = "titlepage">
+
+<h1 class = "four">THE</h1>
+
+<h1 class = "smallcaps">Roman Pronunciation of Latin</h1>
+
+<h2 class = "smallcaps">Why we use it and How to use it</h2>
+
+<h3 class = "six">BY</h3>
+
+<h3>FRANCES E. LORD</h3>
+
+<h4 class = "smallcaps">Professor of Latin in Wellesley College</h4>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p class = "illustration">
+<img src = "images/decline2.png" width = "100" height = "7"
+alt = "----">
+</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h5>BOSTON, U.S.A.<br>
+<span class = "extended">PUBLISHED BY GINN &amp; COMPANY</span><br>
+1894</h5>
+
+</div>
+
+<hr>
+
+<div class = "titlepage">
+
+<h6 class = "smallcaps">Copyright, 1894<br>
+By FRANCES E. LORD</h6>
+
+<hr class = "micro">
+
+<h6><span class = "smaller">ALL RIGHTS RESERVED</span></h6>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p class = "illustration">
+<img src = "images/publogo.png" width = "82" height = "125"
+alt = "Publisher’s Device: The Athenæum Press / Ginn and Company"
+title = "Publisher’s Device: The Athenæum Press / Ginn and Company">
+</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<hr>
+
+<div class = "contents">
+
+<p class = "center"><a name = "contents" id = "contents">
+<span class = "larger"><b>Contents</b></span></a><br>
+(added by transcriber)</p>
+
+<hr class = "mid">
+
+<p><a href = "#intro">Introduction</a></p>
+<p><a href = "#partI"><b>PART I. Why We Use It.</b></a></p>
+
+<div class= "inset">
+<p><a href = "#why_sounds">Sounds of the Letters.</a></p>
+<div class= "inset">
+<p><a href = "#vowels">Vowels.</a></p>
+<p><a href = "#diphthongs">Diphthongs.</a></p>
+<p><a href = "#consonants">Consonants.</a></p>
+</div>
+<p><a href = "#why_quantity">Quantity.</a></p>
+<p><a href = "#why_accent">Accent.</a></p>
+<p><a href = "#why_pitch">Pitch.</a></p>
+</div>
+
+<p><a href = "#partII"><b>PART II. How To Use It.</b></a></p>
+
+<div class= "inset">
+<p><a href = "#how_elision">Elision.</a></p>
+<p><a href = "#how_quantity">Quantity.</a></p>
+<p><a href = "#how_accent">Accent.</a></p>
+</div>
+
+</div>
+
+
+<div class = "chapter">
+
+<span class = "pagenum">iii</span>
+<h3><a name = "intro" id = "intro">INTRODUCTION.</a></h3>
+
+<p class = "illustration">
+<img src = "images/decline.png" width = "67" height = "7"
+alt = "----"></p>
+
+<p><span class = "firstword">The</span> argument brought against the
+‘Roman pronunciation’ of Latin is twofold: the impossibility of perfect
+theoretical knowledge, and the difficulty of practical attainment.</p>
+
+<p>If to know the main features of the classic pronunciation of Latin
+were impossible, then our obvious course would be to refuse the attempt;
+to regard the language as in reality dead, and to make no pretence of
+reading it. This is in fact what the English scholars generally do. But
+if we may know substantially the sounds of the tongue in which Cicero
+spoke and Horace sung, shall we give up the delights of the melody and
+the rhythm and content ourselves with the thought form? Poetry
+especially does not exist apart from sound; sense alone will not
+constitute it, nor even sense and form without sound.</p>
+
+<p>But if it is true that the task of practical acquisition is, if not
+impossible, extremely difficult, ‘the work of a lifetime,’ as the
+objectors say, do the results justify the expenditure of time and
+labor?</p>
+
+<p>The position of the English-speaking peoples is not the same in this
+as that of Europeans. Europeans have not the same necessity to urge them
+to the ‘Roman pronunciation.’ Their own languages represent the Latin
+more or less adequately, in vowel sounds, in accent, and even, to some
+extent, in quantity; so that with them, all is not lost
+<span class = "pagenum">iv</span>
+if they translate the sounds into their own tongues; while with us,
+nothing is left&mdash;sound, accent, quantity, all is gone; none of
+these is reproduced, or even suggested, in English.</p>
+
+<p>We believe a great part of our difficulty, in this country, lies in
+the fact that so few of those who study and teach Latin really know what
+the ‘Roman pronunciation’ is, or how to use it. Inquiries are constantly
+being made by teachers, Why is this so? What authority is there for
+this? What reason for that?</p>
+
+<p>In the hope of giving help to those who desire to know the Why and
+the How this little compendium is made; in the interest of
+time-and-labor-saving uniformity, and in the belief that what cannot be
+fully known or perfectly acquired does still not prevent our perceiving,
+and showing in some worthy manner and to, some satisfactory degree, how,
+as well as what, the honey-tongued orators and divine poets of Rome
+spoke or sung.</p>
+
+<p>In the following pages free use has been made of the highest English
+authorities, of Oxford and Cambridge. Quotations will be found from
+Prof. H.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;J. Munro’s pamphlet on “Pronunciation of Latin,”
+and from Prof. A.&nbsp;J. Ellis’ book on “Quantitative Pronunciation of
+Latin”; also from the pamphlet issued by the Cambridge (Eng.)
+Philological Society, on the “Pronunciation of Latin in the Augustan
+Period.”</p>
+
+<p>In the present compendium the chief points of divergence from the
+general American understanding of the ‘Roman’ method are in respect of
+the diphthong <b>ae</b> and the consonantal&nbsp;<b>u</b>. In these
+cases the pronunciation herein recommended for the <b>ae</b> is that
+favored by Roby, Munro, and Ellis, and adopted by the Cambridge
+Philological Society; for the <b>v</b>, or <b>u</b> consonant, that
+advocated by Corssen, A.&nbsp;J. Ellis, and Robinson Ellis.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<hr>
+
+<div class = "chapter">
+
+<span class = "pagenum">1</span>
+<h2>THE ROMAN PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN.</h2>
+
+<p class = "illustration">
+<img src = "images/decline.png" width = "67" height = "7"
+alt = "----"></p>
+
+<h3><a name = "partI" id = "partI">PART I.</a><br>
+<b>WHY WE USE IT.</b></h3>
+
+
+<p><span class = "firstword">In</span> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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&mdash;than whom is no higher.
+He speaks of the subtleties of the grammarians:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Quint. I. iv. 6.</small>] Interiora velut sacri hujus adeuntibus
+apparebit multa rerum subtilitas, quae non modo acuere ingenia puerilia
+sed exercere altissimam quoque eruditionem ac scientiam possit.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>And says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Id. ib. iv. 7.</small>] An cujuslibet auris est exigere
+litterarum sonos?
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">2</span>
+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:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Id. ib. vii. 30, 31.</small>] Indicium autem suum grammaticus
+interponat his omnibus; nam hoc valere plurimum debet. Ego (note the
+<i>ego</i>) 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.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>On this point Professor Munro says:</p>
+
+<p>“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: <i>coira</i>,
+<i>coera</i>, <i>cura</i>; <i>aiquos</i>, <i>aequos</i>, <i>aecus</i>;
+<i>queicumque</i>, <i>quicumque</i>, etc., etc.”</p>
+
+<p>And again:</p>
+
+<p>“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&nbsp;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.”</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">3</span>
+<p>These are:</p>
+
+<p>(1) Sounds of the letters (vowels, diphthongs, consonants);</p>
+
+<p>(2) Quantity;</p>
+
+<p>(3) Accent.</p>
+
+
+<h4><a name = "why_sounds" id = "why_sounds">
+<b>SOUNDS OF THE LETTERS.</b></a></h4>
+
+<h4 class = "smallcaps"><a name = "vowels" id = "vowels">
+Vowels.</a></h4>
+
+<p>The vowels are five: <b>a</b>, <b>e</b>, <b>i</b>,
+<b>o</b>,&nbsp;<b>u</b>.</p>
+
+<p>These when uttered alone are always long.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Pompei. <i>Comm. ad Donat.</i> Keil. v.&nbsp;V. p.&nbsp;101 et
+al.</small>] Vocales autem quinque sunt: <b>a</b>, <b>e</b>, <b>i</b>,
+<b>o</b>,&nbsp;<b>u</b>. Istae quinque, quando solae proferuntur, longae
+sunt semper: quando solas litteras dicis, longae sunt. <b>A</b> sola
+longa est; <b>e</b> sola longa est.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><b>A</b> is uttered with the mouth widely opened, the tongue
+suspended and not touching the teeth:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Ars Gram. Mar. Vict. de orthographia et de metrica ratione, I.
+vi. 6.</small>] <b>A</b> littera rictu patulo, suspensa neque impressa
+dentibus lingua, enuntiatur.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><b>E</b> is uttered with the mouth less widely open, and the lips
+drawn back and inward:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Id. ib. vi. 7.</small>] <b>E</b> quae sequitur, de represso
+modice rictu oris, reductisque introrsum labiis, effertur.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><b>I</b> will voice itself with the mouth half closed and the teeth
+gently pressed by the tongue:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Id. ib. vi. 8.</small>] <b>I</b> semicluso ore, impressisque
+sensim lingua dentibus, vocem dabit.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><b>O</b> (long) will give the “tragic sound” through rounded opening,
+with lips protruded, the tongue pendulous in the roof of the mouth:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<span class = "pagenum">4</span>
+[<small>Id. ib. vi. 9.</small>] <b>O</b> longum autem, protrusis labiis,
+rictu tereti, lingua arcu oris pendula, sonum tragicum dabit.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><b>U</b> is uttered with the lips protruding and approaching each
+other, like the Greek <span class = "greek" lang = "el" title =
+"ou">ου</span>:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Id. ib. vi. 10.</small>] <b>U</b> litteram quotiens enuntiamus,
+productis et coeuntibus labris efferemus .&nbsp;.&nbsp;. quam nisi per
+<span class = "greek" lang = "el" title = "ou">ου</span> conjunctam
+Graeci scribere ac pronuntiare non possunt.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Of these five vowels the grammarians say that three (<b>a</b>,
+<b>i</b>, <b>u</b>) do not change their quality with their quantity:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Pompei. <i>Comm. ad Donat.</i> Keil. v.&nbsp;V.
+p.&nbsp;101.</small>] De istis quinque litteris tres sunt, quae sive
+breves sive longae ejusdemmodi sunt, <b>a, i, u</b>: similiter habent
+sive longae sive breves.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>But two (<b>e</b>, <b>o</b>) change their quality:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Id. ib.</small>] <b>O</b> vero et <b>e</b> non sonant breves.
+</blockquote>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p><b>E</b> aliter longa aliter brevis sonat. Dicit ita Terentianus (hoc
+dixit) ‘Quotienscumque <b>e</b> longam volumus proferri, vicina sit ad
+<b>i</b> litteram.’ Ipse sonus sic debet sonare, quomodo sonat <b>i</b>
+littera. Quando dicis <i>evitat</i>, vicina debet esse, sic pressa, sic
+angusta, ut vicina sit ad <b>i</b> litteram. Quando vis dicere brevem
+<b>e</b> simpliciter sonat. <b>O</b> longa sit an brevis. Si longa est,
+debet sonus ipse intra palatum sonare, ut si dices <i>orator</i>, quasi
+intra sonat, intra palatum. Si brevis est debet primis labris sonare,
+quasi extremis labris, ut puta sic dices <i>obit</i>. Habes istam
+regulam expressam in Terentiano. Quando vis exprimere quia brevis est,
+primis labris sonat; quando exprimis longam, intra palatum sonat.</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Ars Gram. Mar. Vict. de Orthog. et de Metr. Rat., I. vi.
+9.</small>] <b>O</b> qui correptum enuntiat, nec magno hiatu labra
+reserabit, et retrorsum actam linguam tenebit.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>It would thus seem that the long <b>e</b> of the Latin in its
+prolongation draws into the <b>i</b> sound, somewhat as if <b>i</b> were
+subjoined, as in the English <i>vein</i> or Italian <i>fedele</i>.</p>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">5</span>
+<p>The grammarians speak of the obscure sound of <b>i</b> and <b>u</b>,
+short and unaccented in the middle of a word; so that in a number of
+words <b>i</b> and <b>u</b> were written indifferently, even by classic
+writers, as <i>optimus</i> or <i>optumus</i>, <i>maximus</i> or
+<i>maxumus</i>. This is but a simple and natural thing. The same
+obscurity occurs often in English, as, for instance, in words ending in
+<i>able</i> or <i>ible</i>. How easy, for instance, to confuse the sound
+and spelling in such words as <i>detestable</i> and
+<i>digestible</i>.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Serg. Explan. Art. Donat. Keil. v.&nbsp;II.
+p.&nbsp;475.</small>] Hae etiam duae <b>i</b> et <b>u</b>
+.&nbsp;.&nbsp;. interdum expressum suum sonum non habent: <b>i</b>, ut
+<i>vir</i>; <b>u</b>, ut <i>optumus</i>. Non enim possumus dicere
+<i>vir</i> producta <b>i</b>, nec <i>optumus</i> producta <b>u</b>; 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, .&nbsp;.&nbsp;. ut <i>maxume</i> pro
+<i>maxime</i>.&nbsp;.&nbsp;.&nbsp;. In quibusdam nominibus non certum
+exprimunt sonum; <b>i</b>, ut <i>vir</i> modo <b>i</b> opprimitur;
+<b>u</b> ut <i>optumus</i> modo <b>u</b> perdit sonum.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Priscian says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;II. p.&nbsp;465.</small>] Cur per <b>vi</b>
+scribitur (virum)? Quia omnia nomina a <b>vi</b> syllaba incipientia per
+<b>vi</b> scribuntur exceptis <i>bitumine</i> et <i>bile</i>, quando
+<i>fel</i> significat, et illis quae a <i>bis</i> adverbio componuntur,
+ut <i>biceps</i>, <i>bipatens</i>, <i>bivium</i>. Cur sonum videtur
+habere in hac dictione <b>i</b> vocalis <b>u</b> litterae Graecae? Quia
+omnis dictio a <b>vi</b> syllaba brevi incipiens, <b>d</b> vel <b>t</b>
+vel <b>m</b> vel <b>r</b> vel <b>x</b> sequentibus, hoc sono
+pronuntiatur, ut <i>video</i>, <i>videbam</i>, <i>videbo</i>: quia in
+his temporibus <b>vi</b> corripitur, mutavit sonum in <b>u</b>: in
+praeterito autem perfecto, et in aliis in quibus producitur, naturalem
+servavit sonum, ut <i>vidi</i>, <i>videram</i>, <i>vidissem</i>,
+<i>videro</i>. Similiter <i>vitium</i> mutat sonum, quia corripitur;
+<i>vita</i> autem non mutat, quia producitur. Similiter <i>vim</i> mutat
+quia corripitur, <i>vimen</i> autem non mutat quia producitur. Similiter
+<i>vir</i> et <i>virgo</i> mutant, quia corripiuntur: <i>virus</i> autem
+et <i>vires</i> non mutant, quia producuntur. <i>Vix</i> mutant, quia
+corripitur: <i>vixi</i> non mutant, quia producitur.
+<span class = "pagenum">6</span>
+Hoc idem plerique solent etiam in illis dictionibus facere, in quibus a
+<b>fi</b> brevi incipiunt syllabae sequentibus supra dictis
+consonantibus, ut <i>fides</i>, <i>perfidus</i>, <i>confiteor</i>,
+<i>infimus</i>, <i>firmus</i>. Sunt autem qui non adeo hoc observant,
+cum de <b>vi</b> nemo fere dubitat.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>From this it would seem that in the positions above mentioned
+<b>vi</b> short&mdash;and with some speakers <b>fi</b> short&mdash;had
+an obscure, somewhat thickened, sound, not unlike that heard in the
+English words <i>virgin</i>, <i>firm</i>, a not unnatural obscuration.
+As Donatus says of it:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;IV. p.&nbsp;367.</small>] Pingue nescio quid pro
+naturali sono usurpamus.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Sometimes, apparently, this tendency ran into excess, and the long
+<b>i</b> was also obscured; while sometimes the short <b>i</b> was
+pronounced too distinctly. This vice is commented on by the grammarians,
+under the name <i>iotacism</i>:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Pompei. Comm. ad Donat. Keil. v.&nbsp;V. p.&nbsp;394.</small>]
+<i>Iotacismum</i> dicunt vitium quod per <b>i</b> litteram vel pinguius
+vel exilius prolatam fit. Galli pinguius hanc utuntur, ut cum dicunt
+<i>ite</i>, non expresse ipsam proferentes, sed inter <b>e</b> et
+<b>i</b> pinguiorem sonum nescio quem ponentes. Graeci exilius hanc
+proferunt, adeo expressioni ejus tenui studentes, ut si dicant
+<i>jus</i>, 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 <i>ite</i>, aut
+pinguior, ubi in ea desinit verbum, ut <i>habui</i>, <i>tenui</i>;
+medium quendam sonum inter <b>e</b> et <b>i</b> habet, ubi in medio
+sermone est, ut <i>hominem</i>. 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.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>The grammarians also note the peculiar relation of <b>u</b> to
+<b>q</b>, as in the following passage:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Serg. Explan. Art. Donat. Keil. v.&nbsp;IV.
+p.&nbsp;475.</small>] <b>U</b> vero hoc accidit proprium, ut interdum
+nec vocalis nec consonans sit, hoc est ut non
+<span class = "pagenum">7</span>
+sit littera, cum inter <b>q</b> et aliquam vocalem ponitur. Nam
+consonans non potest esse, quia ante se habet alteram consonantem, id
+est <b>q</b>; vocalis esse non potest, quia sequitur illam vocalis, ut
+<i>quare</i>, <i>quomodo</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+
+<h4 class = "smallcaps"><a name = "diphthongs" id = "diphthongs">
+Diphthongs.</a></h4>
+
+<p>In Marius Victorinus we find diphthongs thus defined:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Mar. Vict. Gaisford, I. v. 54.</small>] Duae inter se vocales
+jugatae ac sub unius vocis enuntiatione prolatae syllabam faciunt natura
+longam, quam Graeci <i>diphthongon</i> vocant, veluti geminae vocis unum
+sonum, ut <b>ae</b>, <b>oe</b>,&nbsp;<b>au</b>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>And more fully in the following paragraph:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Mar. Vict. Gaisford, I. v. 6.</small>] Sunt longae naturaliter
+syllabae, cum duae vocales junguntur, quas syllabas Graeci
+<i>diphthongos</i> vocant; ut <b>ae</b>, <b>oe</b>, <b>au</b>,
+<b>eu</b>, <b>ei</b>: nam illae diphthongi non sunt quae fiunt per
+vocales loco consonantium positas; ut <b>ia</b>, <b>ie</b>, <b>ii</b>,
+<b>io</b>, <b>iu</b>, <b>va</b>, <b>ve</b>, <b>vi</b>,
+<b>vo</b>,&nbsp;<b>vu</b>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Of these diphthongs <b>eu</b> occurs,&mdash;except in Greek
+words,&mdash;only in <i>heus</i>, <i>heu</i>, <i>eheu</i>; in
+<i>seu</i>, <i>ceu</i>, <i>neu</i>. In <i>neuter</i> and
+<i>neutiquam</i> the <b>e</b> is probably elided.</p>
+
+<p>Diphthongs ending in <b>i</b>, viz., <b>ei</b>, <b>oi</b>, <b>ui</b>,
+occur only in a few interjections and in cases of contraction.</p>
+
+<p>While in pronouncing the diphthong the sound of both vowels was to
+some extent preserved, there are many indications that
+(in&nbsp;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 <i>iota</i> pronounced as simple <b>i</b>, so in Latin there
+are numerous instances, before and during the classic period, of the use
+of <b>e</b> for <b>ae</b> or <b>oe</b>, and it is to be noted that in
+the latest spelling <b>e</b> generally prevails.</p>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">8</span>
+<p>Munro says:</p>
+
+<p>“In Lucilius’s time the rustics said <i>Cecilius pretor</i> for
+<i>Caecilius praetor</i>; in two Samothracian inscriptions older than
+<span class = "smallroman">B.C.</span> 100 (the sound of <b>ai</b> by
+that time verging to an open <b>e</b>), we find <i>muste piei</i> and
+<i>muste</i>: in similar inscriptions <span class = "greek" lang = "el"
+title = "mustai">μύσται</span> piei, and <i>mystae</i>: <i>Paeligni</i>
+is reproduced in Strabo by <span class = "greek" lang = "el" title =
+"Pelignoi">Πελιγνόι</span>: Cicero, Virgil, Festus, and Servius all
+alike give <i>caestos</i> for <span class = "greek" lang = "el" title =
+"kestos">κεστός</span>: by the first century, perhaps sooner, <b>e</b>
+was very frequently put for <b>ae</b> in words like <i>taeter</i>: we
+often find <i>teter</i>, <i>erumna</i>, <i>mestus</i>, <i>presto</i> and
+the like: soon inscriptions and MSS. began pertinaciously to offer
+<b>ae</b> for <b>ĕ</b>: <i>praetum</i>, <i>praeces</i>,
+<i>quaerella</i>, <i>aegestas</i> and the like, the <b>ae</b>
+representing a short and very open <b>e</b>: sometimes it stands for a
+long <b>e</b>, as often in <i>plaenus</i>, the liquid before and after
+making perhaps the <b>e</b> more open (<span class = "greek" lang = "el"
+title = "skênê">σκηνή</span> is always <i>scaena</i>): and it is from
+this form <i>plaenus</i> that in Italian, contrary to the usual law of
+long Latin <b>e</b>, we have <i>pièno</i> with open&nbsp;<b>e</b>. With
+such pedigree then, and with the genuine Latin <b>ae</b> <i>always</i>
+represented in Italian by open <b>e</b>, can we hesitate to pronounce
+the <b>ae</b> with this open <b>e</b> sound?”</p>
+
+<p>The argument sometimes used, for pronouncing <b>ae</b> like
+<b>ai</b>, that in the poets we occasionally find <b>ai</b> in the
+genitive singular of the first declension, appears to have little weight
+in view of the following explanation:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Mar. Vict, de Orthog. et de Metr. Rat., I. iii. 38.</small>]
+<b>Ae</b> Syllabam quidam more Graecorum per <b>ai</b> scribunt, nec
+illud quidem custodient, quia omnes fere, qui de orthographia aliquid
+scriptum reliquerunt, praecipiunt, nomina femina casu nominativo
+<b>a</b> finita, numero plurali in <b>ae</b> exire, ut <i>Aeliae</i>:
+eadem per <b>a</b> et <b>i</b> scripta numerum singularem ostendere, ut
+hujus <i>Aeliai</i>: inducti a poetis, qui <i>pictai vestis</i>
+scripserunt: et quia Graeci per <b>i</b> potissimum hanc syllabam
+scribunt propter exilitatem litterae, <span class = "greek" lang = "el"
+title = "Greek letter eta">η</span> autem propter naturalem productionem
+jungere vocali alteri non possunt: <i>iota</i> vero, quae est
+<span class = "pagenum">9</span>
+brevis eademque longa, aptior ad hanc structuram visa est: quam
+potestatem apud nos habet et <b>i</b>, quae est longa et brevis. Vos
+igitur sine controversia ambiguitatis, et pluralem nominativum, et
+singularem genitivum per <b>ae</b> scribite: nam qui non potest
+dignoscere supra scriptarum vocum numeros et casum, valde est hebes.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Of <b>oe</b> Munro says:</p>
+
+<p>“When hateful barbarisms like <i>coelum</i>, <i>coena</i>,
+<i>moestus</i> are eliminated, <b>oe</b> occurs very rarely in Latin:
+<i>coepi</i>, <i>poena</i>, <i>moenia</i>, <i>coetus</i>,
+<i>proelia</i>, besides archaisms <i>coera</i>, <i>moerus</i>, etc.,
+where <b>oe</b>, coming from <b>oi</b>, passed into&nbsp;<b>u</b>. If we
+must have a simple sound, I&nbsp;should take the open <b>e</b> sound
+which I have given to <b>ae</b>: but I should prefer one like the
+German&nbsp;<b>ö</b>. Their rarity, however, makes the sound of
+<b>oe</b>, <b>eu</b>, <b>ui</b> of less importance.”</p>
+
+<p>Of <b>au</b> Munro says:</p>
+
+<p>“Here, too, <b>au</b> has a curious analogy with <b>ae</b>: The Latin
+au becomes in Italian open <b>o</b>: <i>òro òde</i>: I would pronounce
+thus in Latin: <i>plòstrum</i>, <i>Clòdius</i>, <i>còrus</i>. Perhaps,
+too, the fact that <i>gloria</i>, <i>vittoria</i> and the common
+termination <i>-orio</i>, have in Italian the open <b>o</b>, might show
+that the corresponding <b>ō</b> in Latin was open by coming between two
+liquids, or before one: compare <i>plenus</i> above.” “I&nbsp;should
+prefer,” he says, (to&nbsp;represent the Latin <b>au</b>,) “the Italian
+<b>au</b>, which gives more of the <b>u</b> than our <i>owl</i>,
+<i>cow</i>.”</p>
+
+
+<h4 class = "smallcaps"><a name = "consonants" id = "consonants">
+Consonants.</a></h4>
+
+<p><b>B</b> has, in general, the same sound as in English.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Mar. Vict. Keil. v.&nbsp;VI. p.&nbsp;32.</small>] E quibus
+<b>b</b> et <b>p</b> litterae .&nbsp;.&nbsp;. dispari inter se oris
+officio exprimuntur. Nam prima exploso e mediis labiis sono, sequens
+compresso ore velut introrsum attracto vocis ictu explicatur.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">10</span>
+<b>B</b> before <b>s</b> or <b>t</b> is sharpened to <b>p</b>: thus
+<i>urbs</i> is pronounced <i>urps</i>; <i>obtinuit</i>, <i>optinuit</i>.
+Some words, indeed, are written either way; as <i>obses</i>, or
+<i>opses</i>; <i>obsonium</i>, or <i>opsonium</i>; <i>obtingo</i>, or
+<i>optingo</i>; and Quintilian says it is a question whether the change
+should be indicated in writing or not:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Quint. I. vii. 7.</small>] Quaeri solet, in scribendo
+praepositiones, sonum quern junctae efficiunt an quem separatae,
+observare conveniat: ut cum dico <i>obtinuit</i>, secundam enim <b>b</b>
+litteram ratio poscit, aures magis audiunt&nbsp;<b>p</b>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<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
+<i>obtinuit</i>, to give its normal sound to <b>b</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>b</b> will
+change itself to&nbsp;<b>p</b>.</p>
+
+<p><b>C</b> appears to have but one sound, the hard, as in
+<i>sceptic</i>:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Mar. Vict. Keil. v.&nbsp;VI. p.&nbsp;32.</small>] <b>C</b> etiam
+et .&nbsp;.&nbsp;. <b>G</b> sono proximae, oris molimine nisuque
+dissentiunt. Nam <b>c</b> reducta introrsum lingua hinc atque hinc
+molares urgens haerentem intra os sonum vocis excludit: <b>g</b> vim
+prioris pari linguae habitu palato suggerens lenius reddit.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Not only do we find no hint in the grammarians of any sound akin to
+the soft <b>c</b> in English, as in <i>sceptre</i>, but they all speak
+of <b>c</b> and <b>k</b> and <b>q</b> as identical, or substantially so,
+in sound; and Quintilian expressly states that the sound of <b>c</b> is
+always the same. Speaking of <b>k</b> as superfluous, he says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Quint. I. vii. 10.</small>] Nam <b>k</b> 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
+<b>c</b> littera, quae ad omnes vocales vim suam perferat.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">11</span>
+And Priscian declares:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;II. p.&nbsp;13.</small>] Quamvis in varia figura
+et vario nomine sint <b>k</b> et <b>q</b> et <b>c</b>, tamen quia unam
+vim habent tam in metro quam in sono, pro una littera accipi debent.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Without the best of evidence we should hardly believe that words
+written indifferently with <b>ae</b> or <b>e</b> after <b>c</b> 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 <i>Sesilius</i> for <i>Kaekilius</i>. Nor
+does it seem probable that in different cases the same word would vary
+so greatly, or that in the numerous compounds where after <b>c</b> the
+<b>a</b> weakens to <b>i</b> the sound of the <b>c</b> was also changed
+from <b>k</b> to <b>s</b>, as “<i>kapio</i>” “<i>insipio</i>”;
+“<i>kado</i>,” “<i>insido</i>.”</p>
+
+<p>Quintilian, noting the changes of fashion in the sounding of the
+<b>h</b>, enumerates, among other instances of excessive use of the
+aspirate, the words <i>choronae</i> (for <i>coronae</i>),
+<i>chenturiones</i> (for <i>centuriones</i>), <i>praechones</i> (for
+<i>praecones</i>), as if the three words were alike in their initial
+sound.</p>
+
+<p>Alluding to inscriptions (first volume), where we have <i>pulcher</i>
+and <i>pulcer</i>, <i>Gracchis</i> and <i>Graccis</i>, Mr. Munro says:
+“I&nbsp;do not well see how the aspirate could have been attached to the
+<b>c</b>, if <b>c</b> had not a <b>k</b> sound, or how in this case
+<b>c</b> before <b>e</b> or <b>i</b> could have differed from <b>c</b>
+before <b>a</b>, <b>o</b>,&nbsp;<b>u</b>.”</p>
+
+<p>Professor Munro also cites an inscription (844 of the “Corpus
+Inscr.,” vol.&nbsp;I.) bearing on the case in another way. In this
+inscription we have the word <i>dekembres</i>. “This,” says Mr. Munro,
+“is one of nearly two hundred short, plebeian, often half-barbarous,
+very old inscriptions on a collection of ollae. The <b>k</b> before
+<b>e</b>, or any letter except <b>a</b>, is solecistic, just as in no.
+831 is the <b>c</b>, instead of <b>k</b>, for <i>calendas</i>. From this
+I would infer that, as in the latter
+<span class = "pagenum">12</span>
+the writer saw no difference between <b>c</b> and <b>k</b>, so to the
+writer of the former <b>k</b> was the same as <b>c</b>
+before&nbsp;<b>e</b>.”</p>
+
+<p>Again he says:</p>
+
+<p>“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.”</p>
+
+<p>As to the peculiar effect of <b>c</b> final in certain particles to
+“lengthen” the vowel before it, this <b>c</b> is doubtless the remnant
+of the intensive enclitic <b>ce</b>, and the so-called ‘length’ is not
+in the vowel, but in the more forcible utterance of the&nbsp;<b>c</b>.
+It is true that Priscian says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;II. p.&nbsp;34.</small>] Notandum, quod ante hanc
+solam mutam finalem inveniuntur longae vocales, ut <i>hōc</i>,
+<i>hāc</i>, <i>sīc</i>, <i>hīc</i> adverbium.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>And Probus speaks of <b>c</b> as often prolonging the vowel before
+it. But Victorinus, more philosophically, attributes the length to the
+“double” sound of the consonant:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Mar. Vict. I. v. 46.</small>] Consideranda ergo est in his
+duntaxat pronominibus natura <b>c</b> litterae, quae crassum quodammodo
+et quasi geminum sonum reddat, <i>hic</i> et <i>hoc</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>And he adds that you do not get that more emphatic sound in, for
+instance, the conjunction <i>nec</i>.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+Si autem <i>nec</i> conjunctionem aspiciamus, licet eadem littera
+finitam, diversum tamen sonabit.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>And again:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+Ut dixi, in pronominibus c littera sonum efficit crassiorem.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Pompeius, commenting upon certain vices of speech, says that some
+persons bring out the final <b>c</b> in certain words too heavily,
+pronouncing <i>sic ludit</i> as <i>sic cludit</i>; while others, on
+<span class = "pagenum">13</span>
+the contrary, touch it so lightly that when the following word begins
+with <b>c</b> you hear but a single <b>c</b>:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;V. p.&nbsp;394.</small>] Item litteram <b>c</b>
+quidam in quibusdam dictionibus non latine ecferunt, sed ita crasse, ut
+non discernas quid dicant: ut puta siquis dicat <i>sic ludit</i>, ita
+hoc loquitur ut putes eum in secunda parte orationis <i>cludere</i>
+dixisse, non <i>ludere</i>: et item si contra dicat illud contrarium
+putabis. Alii contra ita subtiliter hoc ecferunt, ut cum duo <b>c</b>
+habeant, desinentis prioris partis orationis et incipientis alterius,
+sic loquantur quasi uno <b>c</b> utrumque explicent, ut dicunt multi
+<i>sic custodit</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><b>D</b>, in general, is pronounced as in English, except that the
+tongue should touch the teeth rather than the palate.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Pompei. <i>Comm. ad Donat.</i> Keil. v.&nbsp;VI.
+p.&nbsp;32.</small>] <b>D</b> autem et <b>t</b> quibus, ut ita dixerim,
+vocis vicinitas quaedam est, linguae sublatione ac positione
+distinguuntur. Nam cum summos atque imos conjunctim dentes suprema sui
+parte pulsaverit <b>d</b> litteram exprimit. Quotiens autem sublimata
+partem, qua superis dentibus est origo, contigerit <b>t</b> sonare vocis
+explicabit.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>But when certain words in common use ending in <b>d</b> were followed
+by words beginning with a consonant, the sound of the <b>d</b> was
+sharpened to <b>t</b>; and indeed the word was often, especially by the
+earlier writers, written with <b>t</b>, as, for instance, <i>set</i>,
+<i>haut</i>, <i>aput</i>:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Mar. Vict. I. iii. 50.</small>] <b>D</b> tamen litteram
+conservat si sequens verbum incipiat a vocali; ut <i>haud aliter
+muros</i>; et <i>haud equidem</i>. At cum verbum a consonante incipit,
+<b>d</b> perdit, <i>ut haut dudum</i>, et <i>haut multum</i>, et <i>haut
+placitura refert</i>, et inducit&nbsp;<b>t</b>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><b>F</b> is pronounced as in English except that it should be brought
+out more forcibly, with more breath.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;VI. p.&nbsp;31.</small>] <b>F</b> litteram imum
+labium superis imprimentibus dentibus, reflexa ad palati fastigium
+lingua, leni spiramine proferemus.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">14</span>
+Marius Victorinus says that <b>f</b> was used in Latin words as
+<b>ph</b> in foreign.</p>
+
+<p>Diomedes (of the fourth century) says the same:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Diom. Keil. v.&nbsp;I. p.&nbsp;422.</small>] Id hoc scire
+debemus quod <b>f</b> littera tum scribitur cum Latina dictio scribitur,
+ut <i>felix</i>. Nam si peregrina fuerit, <b>p</b> et <b>h</b>
+scribimus, ut <i>Phoebus</i>, <i>Phaethon</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>And Priscian makes a similar statement:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Prisc. Keil. v.&nbsp;I. p.&nbsp;35.</small>] <b>F</b> multis
+modis muta magis ostenditur, cum pro <b>p</b> et aspiratione, quae
+similiter muta est, accipitur.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>From the following words of Quintilian we may judge the breathing to
+have been quite pronounced:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Quint. XII. x. 29.</small>] 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 <i>frangit</i>, multo fit horridior.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><b>G</b>, no less than <b>c</b>, appears to have had but one sound,
+the hard, as in the English word <i>get</i>.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Mar. Vict. Keil. v.&nbsp;VI. p.&nbsp;32.</small>] <b>C</b> etiam
+et <b>g</b>, ut supra scriptae, sono proximae, oris molimine nisuque
+dissentiunt. Nam <b>c</b> reducta introrsum lingua, hinc atque hinc
+molares urgens, haerentem intra os sonum vocis excludit: <b>g</b> vim
+prioris, pari linguae habitu palato suggerens, lenius reddit.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Diomedes speaks of <b>g</b> as a new consonant, whose place had
+earlier been filled by <b>c</b>:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;I. p.&nbsp;423.</small>] <b>G</b> nova est
+consonans, in cujus locum <b>c</b> solebat adponi, sicut hodieque cum
+Gaium notamus Caesarem, scribimus <b>C.&nbsp;C.</b>, ideoque etiam post
+<b>b</b> litteram, id est tertio loco, digesta est, ut apud Graecos
+<span class = "greek" lang = "el" title = "Greek letter gamma">γ</span>
+posita reperitur in eo loco.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">15</span>
+Victorinus thus refers to the old custom still in use of writing
+<b>C</b> and <b>Cn</b>, as initials, in certain names, even where the
+names were pronounced as with&nbsp;<b>G</b>.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Mar. Vict. I. iii. 98.</small>] <b>C</b> autem et nomen habuisse
+<b>g</b> et usum praestitisse, quod nunc <i>Caius</i> per <b>C</b>, et
+<i>Cneius</i> per <b>Cn</b>, quamvis utrimque syllabae sonus <b>g</b>
+exprimat, scribuntur.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><b>H</b> has the same sound as in English. The grammarians never
+regarded it as a consonant,&mdash;at least in more than name,&mdash;but
+merely as representing the rough breathing of the Greeks.</p>
+
+<p>Victorinus thus speaks of its nature:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;VI. p.&nbsp;32.</small>] <b>H</b> 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 <b>c</b>, <b>p</b>, <b>r</b>, <b>t</b>; ut <i>chori</i>,
+<i>Phyllis</i>, <i>rhombos</i>, <i>thymos</i>; quae profundo spiritu,
+anhelis faucibus, exploso ore, fundetur.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>By the best authorities <b>h</b> was looked upon as a mere mark of
+aspiration. Victorinus says that Nigidius Figulus so regarded it:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Mar. Vict. I. iv. 5.</small>] Idem (N.&nbsp;F.) <b>h</b> non
+esse litteram, sed notam adspirationis tradidit.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>There appears to have been the same difference of opinion and usage
+among the Romans as with us in the matter of sounding
+the&nbsp;<b>h</b>.</p>
+
+<p>Quintilian says that the fashion changed with the age:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Quint. I. v. 19, 20, 21.</small>] Cujus quidem ratio mutata cum
+temporibus est saepius. Parcissime ea veteres usi etiam in vocalibus,
+cum <i>oedus vicos</i>que dicebant, diu deinde servatum ne consonantibus
+aspirarent, ut in <i>Graecis</i> et in <i>triumpis</i>; erupit brevi
+tempore nimius usus, ut <i>choronae</i>, <i>chenturiones</i>,
+<i>praechones</i>, adhuc quibusdam inscriptionibus maneant, qua de re
+Catulli nobile epigramma
+<span class = "pagenum">16</span>
+est. Inde durat ad nos usque <i>vehementer</i>, et <i>comprehendere</i>,
+et <i>mihi</i>, nam <i>mehe</i> quoque pro me apud antiquos tragoediarum
+praecipue scriptores in veteribus libris invenimus.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>In the epigram above referred to Catullus thus satirizes the
+excessive use of the aspirate:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Catullus lxxxiv.</small>]
+</blockquote>
+
+<div class = "verse">
+<p>Chommoda dicebat, si quando commoda vellet</p>
+<p class = "indent">Dicere, et hinsidias Arrius insidias:</p>
+<p>Et tum mirifice sperabat se esse locutum,</p>
+<p class = "indent">Cum quantum poterat dixerat hinsidias.</p>
+<p>Credo sic mater, sic Liber avunculus ejus,</p>
+<p class = "indent">Sic maternus avus dixerat, atque avia.</p>
+<p>Hoc misso in Syriam requierunt omnibus aures;</p>
+<p class = "indent">Audibant eadem haec leniter et leviter.</p>
+<p>Nec sibi post illa metuebant talia verba,</p>
+<p class = "indent">Cum subito adfertur nuntius horribilis,</p>
+<p>Ionios fluctus postquam illuc Arrius isset</p>
+<p class = "indent">Jam non Ionios esse, sed Hionios.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>On the other hand Quintilian seems disposed to smile at the excess of
+‘culture’ which drops its <b>h</b>’s, to class this with other affected
+‘niceties’ of speech, and to regard the whole matter as of slight
+importance:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Quint. I. vi. 21, 22.</small>] Multum enim litteratus, qui sine
+aspiratione et producta secunda syllaba salutarit (<i>avere</i> est
+enim), et <i>calefacere</i> dixerit potius quam quod dicimus, et
+<i>conservavisse</i>; his adjiciat <i>face</i> et <i>dice</i> et
+similia. Recta est haec via, quis negat? sed adjacet mollior et magis
+trita.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>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.’</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<span class = "pagenum">17</span>
+[<small>Cic. Or. XLVIII. 160.</small>] Quin ego ipse, cum scirem ita
+majores locutos esse ut nusquam nisi in vocali aspiratione uterentur,
+loquebar sic, ut <i>pulcros</i>, <i>cetegus</i>, <i>triumpos</i>,
+<i>Kartaginem</i>, dicerem; aliquando, idque sero, convicio aurium cum
+extorta mihi veritas, usum loquendi populo concessi, scientiam mihi
+reservavi.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Gellius speaks of the ancients as having employed the <b>h</b> 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
+<i>lachrymas</i>; thus, <i>sepulchrum</i>, <i>aheneum</i>,
+<i>vehemens</i>, <i>inchoare</i>, <i>helvari</i>, <i>hallucinari</i>,
+<i>honera</i>, <i>honustum</i>.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Gellius II. iii.</small>] In his enim verbis omnibus litterae,
+seu spiritus istius nulla ratio visa est, nisi ut firmitas et vigor
+vocis, quasi quibusdam nervis additis, intenderetur.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>And he tells an interesting anecdote about a manuscript of
+Vergil:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+Sed quoniam <i>aheni</i> 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:
+</blockquote>
+
+<div class = "verse">
+<p>“Vestibulum ante ipsum, primoque in limine, Pyrrhus:</p>
+<p>&nbsp;Exultat telis, et luce coruscus aëna.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<blockquote>
+Additam supra vidimus <b>h</b> litteram, et <i>ahena</i> factum. Sic in
+illo quoque Vergilii versu in optimis libris scriptum invenimus:
+</blockquote>
+
+<div class = "verse">
+<p>“Aut foliis undam tepidi dispumat aheni.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<p><b>I</b> consonant has the sound of <b>i</b> in the English word
+<i>onion</i>.</p>
+
+<p>The grammarians all express themselves in nearly the same terms as to
+its character:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Serg. Explan. in Art. Donat. Keil. v.&nbsp;IV.
+p.&nbsp;520.</small>] <b>I</b> et <b>u</b> varias habent potestates: nam
+sunt aliquando vocales, aliquando consonantes, aliquando mediae,
+aliquando nihil, aliquando digammae, aliquando duplices. Vocales sunt
+quando aut singulae positae syllabam
+<span class = "pagenum">18</span>
+faciunt aut aliis consonantibus sociantur, ut <i>Iris</i> et <i>unus</i>
+et <i>Isis</i> et <i>urna</i>. 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 <b>i</b>
+vel&nbsp;<b>u</b>. Nam <i>Iulius</i> et <i>Iarbas</i> cum dicis,
+<b>i</b> consonans non est, licet praecedat, quia in una syllaba secum
+non habet conjunctam vocalem, sed in altera consequentem.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>The grammarians speak of <b>i</b> consonant as different in sound and
+effect from the vowel <b>i</b>; 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.</p>
+
+<p>Priscian says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;II. p.&nbsp;13.</small>] Sic <b>i</b> et <b>u</b>,
+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.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>It would seem to be by reason of this twofold nature (vowel and
+consonant) that <b>i</b> has its ‘lengthening’ power. Probus explains
+the matter thus:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;IV. p.&nbsp;220.</small>] Praeterea vim naturamque
+<b>i</b> 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
+<b>i</b> littera duplicem sonum designat, una quamvis figura sit, si
+undique fuerit cincta vocalibus, ut <i>acerrimus Aiax</i>, et
+</blockquote>
+
+<div class = "verse">
+<p>“Aio te, Eacida, Romanos vincere posse.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Again in the commentaries on Donatus we find:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;IV. p.&nbsp;421.</small>] Plane sciendum est quod
+<b>i</b> inter duas posita vocales in una parte orationis pro duabus est
+consonantibus, ut <i>Troia</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">19</span>
+Priscian tells us that earlier it was, as we know, the custom to write
+two <b>i</b>’s:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;III. p.&nbsp;467.</small>] Antiqui solebant duas
+<b>ii</b> scribere, et alteram priori subjungere, alteram praeponere
+sequenti, ut <i>Troiia</i>, <i>Maiia</i>, <i>Aiiax</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>And Quintilian says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Quint. I. iv. II.</small>] Sciat etiam Ciceroni placuisse
+<i>aiio Maiiam</i>que geminata <b>i</b> scribere.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>This doubling of the sound of <b>i</b>, natural, even unavoidable,
+between vowels, gives us the consonant effect (as&nbsp;vowel, uniting
+with the preceding, as consonant, introducing the following, vowel).</p>
+
+<p><b>K</b> has the same sound as in English.</p>
+
+<p>The grammarians generally agree that <b>k</b> is a superfluous, or at
+least unnecessary, letter, its place being filled by&nbsp;<b>c</b>.
+Diomedes says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;I. pp.&nbsp;423, 424.</small>] Ex his quibusdam
+supervacuae videntur <b>k</b> et <b>q</b>, quod <b>c</b> littera harum
+locum possit implere.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>And again:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p><b>K</b> consonans muta supervacua, qua utimur quando <b>a</b>
+correpta sequitur, ut <i>Kalendae</i>, <i>caput</i>,
+<i>calumniae</i>.</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Its only use is as an initial and sign of certain words, and it is
+followed by short <b>a</b> only.</p>
+
+<p>Victorinus says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>I. iii. 23.</small>] <b>K</b> autem dicitur monophonos, quia
+nulli vocali jungitur nisi soli <b>a</b> brevi: et hoc ita ut ab ea pars
+orationis incipit, aliter autem non recte scribitur.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Priscian says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;II. p.&nbsp;36.</small>] <b>K</b> supervacua est,
+ut supra diximus: quae quamvis scribetur nullam aliam vim habet
+quam&nbsp;<b>c</b>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">20</span>
+And Quintilian speaks of it as a mere sign, but says some think it
+should be used when <b>a</b> follows, as initial:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Quint. I. iv. 9.</small>] Et <b>k</b>, quae et ipsa quorundam
+nominum nota est.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>And:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Quint. I. vii. 10.</small>] Nam <b>k</b> quidem in nullis verbis
+utendum puto nisi quae significat etiam ut sola ponatur. Hoc eo non
+omisi quod quidam eam quotiens <b>a</b> sequatur necessariam credunt,
+cum sit <b>c</b> littera, quae ad omnes vocales vim suam perferat.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>This use of <b>k</b>, as an initial, and in certain words, was
+regarded somewhat in the light of a literary ‘fancy.’ Priscian says
+of&nbsp;it:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;II. p.&nbsp;12.</small>] Et <b>k</b> quidem
+penitus supervacua est; nulla enim videtur ratio cur <b>a</b> sequente
+haec scribi debeat: <i>Carthago</i> enim et <i>caput</i> sive per
+<b>c</b> sive per <b>k</b> scribantur nullam faciunt nec in sono nec in
+potestate ejusdem consonantis differentiam.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><b>L</b> is pronounced as in English, only more distinctly and with
+the tongue more nearly approaching the teeth. The sound is thus given by
+Victorinus:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;VI. p.&nbsp;32.</small>] Sequetur <b>l</b>, quae
+validum nescio quid partem palati qua primordium dentibus superis est
+lingua trudente, diducto ore personabit.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>But it varies according to its position in the force and distinctness
+with which it is uttered.</p>
+
+<p>Pliny and others recognize three degrees of force:</p>
+
+<p>Priscian says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;II. p.&nbsp;29.</small>] <b>L</b> triplicem, ut
+Plinius videtur, sonum habet: exilem, quando geminatur secundo loco
+posita, ut <i>ille</i>, <i>Metellus</i>; plenum, quando finit nomina vel
+syllabas, et quando aliquam habet ante se in eadem syllaba consonantem,
+ut <i>sol</i>, <i>silva</i>, <i>flavus</i>, <i>clarus</i>; medium in
+aliis, ut <i>lectum</i>, <i>lectus</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">21</span>
+Pompeius, in his commentaries on Donatus, makes nearly the same
+statement, when treating of ‘<i>labdacism</i>’:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;V. p.&nbsp;394.</small>] <i>Labdacismum</i> vitium
+in eo esse dicunt quod eadem littera vel subtilius, a&nbsp;quibusdam,
+vel pinguius, ecfertur. Et re vera alterutrum vitium quibusdam gentibus
+est. Nam ecce Graeci subtiliter hunc sonum ecferunt. Ubi enim dicunt
+<i>ille mihi dixit</i> sic sonat duae <b>ll</b> primae syllabae quasi
+per unum <b>l</b> sermo ipse consistet. Contra alii sic pronuntiant
+<i>ille meum comitatus iter</i>, et <i>illum ego per flammas eripui</i>
+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>b</b> sequitur, ut in <i>albo</i>; vel
+<b>c</b>, ut in <i>pulchro</i>; vel <b>f</b>, ut in <i>adelfis</i>; vel
+<b>g</b>, ut in <i>alga</i>; vel <b>m</b>, ut in <i>pulmone</i>; vel
+<b>p</b>, ut in <i>scalpro</i>: exilius autem proferenda est ubicumque
+ab ea verbum incipit; ut in <i>lepore</i>, <i>lana</i>, <i>lupo</i>; vel
+ubi in eodem verbo et prior syllaba in hac finitur, et sequens ab ea
+incipit, ut <i>ille</i> et <i>Allia</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>In another place he speaks of the Africans as ‘abounding’ in this
+vice, and of their pronouncing <i>Metellus</i> and <i>Catullus</i>;
+<i>Metelus</i>, <i>Catulus</i>:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;V. p.&nbsp;287.</small>] In his etiam agnoscimus
+gentium vitia; <i>labdacismis</i> scatent Afri, raro est ut aliquis
+dicat <b>l</b>: per geminum <b>l</b> sic loquuntur Romani, omnes Latini
+sic loquuntur, <i>Catullus</i>, <i>Metellus</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><b>M</b> is pronounced as in English, except before <b>q</b>, where
+it has a nasal sound, and when final.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Mar. Vict. Keil. v.&nbsp;VI. p.&nbsp;32.</small>] <b>M</b>
+impressis invicem labiis mugitum quendam intra oris specum attractis
+naribus dabit.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>But this ‘mooing’ sound, in which so many of their words ended, was
+not altogether pleasing to the Roman ear. Quintilian exclaims
+against&nbsp;it:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Quint. XII. x. 31.</small>] Quid quod pleraque nos illa quasi
+mugiente littera cludimus <b>m</b>, qua nullum Graece verbum cadit.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">22</span>
+The offensive sound was therefore gotten rid of, as far as possible, by
+obscuring the <b>m</b> at the end of a word. Priscian speaks of three
+sounds of <b>m</b>,&mdash;at the beginning, in the middle, and at the
+end of a word:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Prisc. Keil. v.&nbsp;II. p.&nbsp;29.</small>] <b>M</b> obscurum
+in extremitate dictionum sonat, ut <i>templum</i>, apertum in principio,
+ut <i>magnus</i>; mediocre in mediis, ut <i>umbra</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>This ‘obscuring’ led in verse to the cutting off of the final
+syllable in <b>m</b> when the following word began with a
+vowel,&mdash;as Priscian remarks in the same connection:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+Finales dictionis subtrahitur <b>m</b> in metro plerumque, si a vocali
+incipit sequens dictio, ut:
+</blockquote>
+
+<div class = "verse">
+<p>“Illum expirantem transfixo pectore flammas.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Yet, he adds, the ancients did not always withdraw the sound:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+Vetustissimi tamen non semper eam subtrahebant, Ennius in X Annalium:
+</blockquote>
+
+<div class = "verse">
+<p>“Insigneita fere tum milia militum octo</p>
+<p>&nbsp;Duxit delectos bellum tolerare potentes.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The <b>m</b> was not, however, entirely ignored. Thus Quintilian
+says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Quint. IX. iv. 40.</small>] Atqui eadem illa littera, quotiens
+ultima est et vocalem verbi sequentis ita contingit ut in eam transire
+possit, etiamsi scribitur tamen parum exprimitur, ut <i>multum ille</i>
+et <i>quantum erat</i>; 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.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>It is a significant fact in this connection that <b>m</b> 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:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<span class = "pagenum">23</span>
+[<small>Priscian. Keil. v.&nbsp;II. p.&nbsp;23.</small>] Nunquam tamen
+eadem <b>m</b> ante se natura longam (vocalem) patitur in eadem syllaba
+esse, ut <i>illam</i>, <i>artem</i>, <i>puppim</i>, <i>illum</i>,
+<i>rem</i>, <i>spem</i>, <i>diem</i>, cum aliae omnes semivocales hoc
+habent, ut <i>Maecenas</i>, <i>Paean</i>, <i>sol</i>, <i>pax</i>,
+<i>par</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>That the <b>m</b> was really sounded we may infer from Pompeius
+(on&nbsp;Donatus) where, treating of <i>myotacism</i>, he calls it the
+careless pronunciation of <b>m</b> between two vowels (at&nbsp;the end
+of one word and the beginning of another), the running of the words
+together in such a way that <b>m</b> seems to begin the second, rather
+than to end the first:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;V. p.&nbsp;287.</small>] Ut si dices <i>hominem
+amicum</i>, <i>oratorem optimum</i>. Non enim videris dicere <i>hominem
+amicum</i>, sed <i>homine mamicum</i>, quod est incongruum et
+inconsonans. Similiter <i>oratorem optimum</i> videris <i>oratore
+moptimum</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>He also warns against the vice of dropping the <b>m</b> altogether.
+One must neither say <i>homine mamicum</i>, nor <i>homine
+amicum</i>:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+Plerumque enim aut suspensione pronuntiatur aut exclusione.
+.&nbsp;.&nbsp;. Nos quid sequi debemus? Quid? per suspensionem tantum
+modo. Qua ratione? Quia si dixeris per suspensionem <i>homimem
+amicum</i>, et haec vitium vitabis, <i>myotacismum</i>, et non cades in
+aliud vitium, id est in hiatum.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>From such passages it would seem that the final syllable ending in
+<b>m</b> is to be lightly and rapidly pronounced, the <b>m</b> not to be
+run over upon the following word.</p>
+
+<p>Some hint of the sound may perhaps be got from the Englishman’s
+pronunciation of such words as Birmingham (Birminghm), Sydenham
+(Sydenhm), Blenheim (Blenhm).</p>
+
+<p><b>N</b>, except when followed by <b>f</b> or <b>s</b>, is pronounced
+as in English, only that it is more dental.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Mar. Vict. Keil. v.&nbsp;VI. p.&nbsp;32.</small>] <b>N</b> vero,
+sub convexo palati lingua inhaerente, gemino naris et oris spiritu
+explicabitur.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">24</span>
+Naturally, as with us, it is more emphatic at the beginning and end of
+words than in the middle (as, <i>Do not give the tendrils the wrong
+turn. Is not the sin condemned?</i>)</p>
+
+<p>Priscian says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;II. p.&nbsp;29.</small>] <b>N</b> quoque plenior
+in primis sonat, et in ultimis, partibus syllabarum, ut <i>nomen</i>,
+<i>stamen</i>; exilior in mediis, ut <i>amnis</i>, <i>damnum</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>As in English, before a guttural (<b>c</b>, <b>g</b>, <b>q</b>,
+<b>x</b>), <b>n</b> 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
+<i>concord</i>, <i>anger</i>, <i>sinker</i>, <i>relinquish</i>,
+<i>anxious</i>.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Nigidius apud Gell. XIX. xiv. 7.</small>] Inter litteram
+<b>n</b> et <b>g</b> est alia vis, ut in nomine <i>anguis</i> et
+<i>angaria</i> et <i>anchorae</i> et <i>increpat</i> et <i>incurrit</i>
+et <i>ingenuus</i>. In omnibus enim his non verum <b>n</b> sed
+adulterinum ponitur. Nam <i>n</i> non esse lingua indicio est. Nam si ea
+littera esset lingua palatum tangeret.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Not only the Greeks, but some of the early Romans, wrote <b>g</b>,
+instead of <b>n</b>, in this position, and gave to the letter so used a
+new name, <i>agma</i>. Priscian says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;II. p.&nbsp;29.</small>] Sequente <b>g</b> vel
+<b>c</b>, pro ea (<b>n</b>) <b>g</b> scribunt Graeci et quidam tamen
+vetustissimi auctores Romani euphoniae causa bene hoc facientes, ut
+<i>Agchises</i>, <i>agceps</i>, <i>aggulus</i>, <i>aggens</i>, quod
+ostendit Varro in <i>Primo de Origine Linguae Latinae</i> his verbis: Ut
+Ion scribit, quinquavicesima est littera, quam vocant “<i>agma</i>,”
+cujus forma nulla est et vox communis est Graecis et Latinis, ut his
+verbis: <i>aggulus</i>, <i>aggens</i>, <i>agguilla</i>, <i>iggerunt</i>.
+In ejusmodi Graeci et Accius noster bina <b>g</b> scribunt, alii
+<b>n</b> et <b>g</b>, quod in hoc veritatem videre facile non est.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>This custom did not, however, prevail among the Romans, and Marius
+Victorinus gives it as his opinion that it is
+<span class = "pagenum">25</span>
+better to use <b>n</b> than <b>g</b>, as more correct to the ear, and
+avoiding ambiguity (the <b>gg</b> being then left for the natural
+expression of double <b>g</b>).</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Mar. Vict. I. iii. 70.</small>] Familiarior est auribus nostris
+<b>n</b> potius quam <b>g</b>, ut <i>anceps</i> et <i>ancilla</i> et
+<i>anguia</i> et <i>angustum</i> et <i>anquirit</i> et <i>ancora</i>, et
+similia, per <b>n</b> potius quam per <b>g</b> scribite: sicut per duo
+<b>g</b> quotiens duorum <b>g</b> sonum aures exigent, ut
+<i>aggerem</i>, <i>suggillat</i>, <i>suggerendum</i>, <i>suggestum</i>,
+et similia.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><b>N</b> before <b>f</b> or <b>s</b> seems to have become a mere
+nasal, lengthening the preceding vowel.</p>
+
+<p>Cicero speaks of this as justified by the ear and by custom, rather
+than by reason:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Cic. Or. XLVIII.</small>] Quid vero hoc elegantius, quod non fit
+natura, sed quodam institute? <i>indoctus</i> dicimus brevi prima
+littera, <i>insanis</i> producta: <i>inhumanus</i> brevi, <i>infelix</i>
+longa: et, ne multis, quibus in verbis eae primae litterae sunt quae in
+<i>sapiente</i> atque <i>felice</i>, producte dicitur; in ceteris
+omnibus breviter: itemque <i>composuit</i>, <i>consuevit</i>,
+<i>concrepit</i>, <i>confecit</i>. Consule veritatem, reprehendet; refer
+ad aures, probabunt. Quaere, cur? Ita se dicent juvari. Voluptati autem
+aurium morigerari debet oratio.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>In Donatus we have the same fact stated, with the same reason:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;IV. p.&nbsp;442.</small>] Quod magis aurium
+indicio quam artis ratione colligimus.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Thus we find numeral adverbs and others ending either in <i>iens</i>
+or <i>ies</i>, as <i>centiens</i> or <i>centies</i>, <i>decies</i> or
+<i>deciens</i>, <i>millies</i> or <i>milliens</i>, <i>quotiens</i> or
+<i>quoties</i>, <i>totiens</i> or <i>toties</i>. Other words, in like
+manner, participles and nouns, are written either with or without the
+<b>n</b> before <b>s</b>, as <i>contunsum</i> or <i>contusum</i>,
+<i>obtunsus</i> or <i>obtusus</i>, <i>thesaurus</i> or <i>thensaurus</i>
+(the <i>ens</i> is regularly represented in Greek by <span class =
+"greek" lang = "el" title = "ês">ης</span>); <i>infans</i> or
+<i>infas</i>, <i>frons</i> or <i>fros</i>. In late Latin the <b>n</b>
+was frequently dropped in participle endings.</p>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">26</span>
+<p>Donatus says that this nasal sound of <b>n</b> should be strenuously
+observed:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;IV. p.&nbsp;442.</small>] Illud vehementissime
+observare debemus, ut <i>con</i> et <i>in</i> quotiensque post se habent
+<b>s</b> vel <b>f</b> litteram, videamus quemadmodum pronuntientur.
+Plerumque enim non observantes in barbarismos incurrimus.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><b>Gn</b> in the terminations <i>gnus</i>, <i>gna</i>, <i>gnum</i>,
+has, according to Priscian, the power to lengthen the penultimate
+vowel.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Prisc. I.</small>] <i>Gnus</i> quoque, vel <i>gna</i>, vel
+<i>gnum</i>, terminantia, longam habent vocalem penultimam; ut a
+<i>regno</i>, <i>regnum</i>; a <i>sto</i>, <i>stagnum</i>; a
+<i>bene</i>, <i>benignus</i>; a <i>male</i>, <i>malignus</i>; ab
+<i>abiete</i>, <i>abiegnus</i>; <i>privignus</i>; <i>Pelignus</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>(Perhaps the liquid sound, as in <i>cañon</i>.)</p>
+
+<p><b>P</b> is pronounced as in English.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Mar. Vict. Keil. v.&nbsp;VI. p.&nbsp;32.</small>] <b>E</b>
+quibus <b>b</b> et <b>p</b> litterae .&nbsp;.&nbsp;. dispari inter se
+oris officio exprimuntur. Nam prima exploso e mediis labiis sono;
+sequens, compresso ore, velut introrsum attracto vocis ictu, explicatur.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><b>Q</b> has the sound of English <b>q</b> in the words <i>quire</i>,
+<i>quick</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Priscian says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;II. p.&nbsp;12.</small>] <b>K</b> enim et
+<b>q</b>, quamvis figura et nomine videantur aliquam habere
+differentiam, cum <b>c</b> tamen eandem, tam in sono vocum, quam in
+metro, potestatem continent.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>And again:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Id. ib. p.&nbsp;36.</small>] De <b>q</b> quoque sufficienter
+supra tractatum est, quae nisi eandem vim haberet quam&nbsp;<b>c</b>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Marius Victorinus says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;VI. p.&nbsp;5.</small>] Item superfluas quasdam
+videntur retinere, <b>x</b> et <b>k</b> et <b>q</b> .&nbsp;.&nbsp;. Pro
+<b>k</b> et <b>q</b>, <b>c</b> littera facillime haberetur; <b>x</b>
+autem per <b>c</b> et&nbsp;<b>s</b>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">27</span>
+And again:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Id. ib. p.&nbsp;32.</small>] <b>K</b> et <b>q</b> supervacue
+numero litterarum inseri doctorum plerique contendunt, scilicet quod
+<b>c</b> littera harum officium possit implere.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>The grammarians tell us that <b>k</b> and <b>q</b> are always found
+at the beginning of a syllable:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Prise. Keil. v.&nbsp;III. p.&nbsp;111.</small>] <b>Q</b> et
+<b>k</b> semper initio syllabarum ponuntur.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>They say also that the use of <b>q</b> was more free among the
+earlier Romans, who placed it as initial wherever <b>u</b>
+followed,&mdash;as they placed <b>k</b> wherever <b>ă</b>
+followed,&mdash;but that in the later, established, usage, its presence
+was conditioned upon a vowel after the <b>u</b> in the same
+syllable:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Donat. Keil. v.&nbsp;IV. p.&nbsp;442.</small>] Namque illi
+<b>q</b> praeponebant quotiens <b>u</b> sequebatur, ut <i>quum</i>; nos
+vero non possumus <b>q</b> praeponere nisi ut <b>u</b> sequatur et post
+ipsam alia vocalis, ut <i>quoniam</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Diomedes says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;I. p.&nbsp;425.</small>] <b>Q</b> consonans muta,
+ex <b>c</b> et <b>u</b> litteris composita, supervacua, qua utimur
+quando <b>u</b> et altera vocalis in una syllaba junguntur, ut
+<i>Quirinus</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><b>R</b> is trilled, as in Italian or French:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Mar. Vict. Keil. v.&nbsp;VI. p.&nbsp;32.</small>] Sequetur
+<b>r</b>, quae, vibratione vocis in palato linguae fastigio, fragorem
+tremulis ictibus reddit.
+</blockquote>
+
+(This proper trilling of the <b>r</b> is most important.)
+
+<p><b>S</b> seems to have had, almost, if not quite, invariably the
+sharp sound of the English <b>s</b> in <i>sing</i>, <i>hiss</i>.</p>
+
+<p>In Greek words written also with <b>z</b>, as <i>Smyrna</i> (also
+written <i>Zmyrna</i>), it probably had the <b>z</b> sound, and possibly
+in a few Latin words, as <i>rosa</i>, <i>miser</i>, but this is not
+certain.</p>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">28</span>
+<p>Marius Victorinus thus sets forth the difference between <b>s</b> and
+<b>x</b>&nbsp;(cs):</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;VI. p.&nbsp;32.</small>] Dehinc duae supremae,
+<b>s</b> et <b>x</b>, 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 <b>c</b> et <b>s</b>, quarum et
+locum implet et vim exprimit, ut sensu aurium ducemur, efficitur.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Donatus, according to Pompeius, complains of the Greeks as sounding
+the <b>s</b> too feebly:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;V. p.&nbsp;394.</small>] Item <b>s</b> litteram
+Graeci exiliter ecferunt adeo ut cum dicunt <i>jussit</i> per unum
+<b>s</b> dicere existimas.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>This would indicate that the Romans pronounced the sibilant
+distinctly,&mdash;yet not too emphatically, for Quintilian says, ‘the
+master of his art (of&nbsp;speaking) will not fondly prolong or dally
+with his <b>s</b>’:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Quint. I. xi. 6.</small>] Ne illas quidem circa <b>s</b>
+litteram delicias hic magister feret.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><b>T</b> is pronounced like the English <b>t</b> pure, except that
+the tongue should approach the teeth more nearly.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Pompei. <i>Comm. ad Donat.</i> Keil. v.&nbsp;VI.
+p.&nbsp;32.</small>] <b>D</b> autem et <b>t</b>, quibus, ut ita dixerim,
+vocis vicinitas quaedam est, linguae sublatione ac positione
+distinguuntur. Nam cum summos atque imos conjunctim dentes suprema sua
+parte pulsaverit <b>d</b> litteram exprimit. Quotiens autem sublimata
+partem qua superis dentibus est <i>origo</i> contigerit, <b>t</b> sonore
+vocis explicabit.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>From the same writer we learn that some pronounced the <b>t</b> too
+heavily, giving it a ‘thick sound’:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;V. p.&nbsp;394.</small>] Ecce in littera <b>t</b>
+aliqui ita pingue nescio quid sonant, ut cum dicunt <i>etiam</i> nihil
+de media syllaba infringant.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">29</span>
+By which we understand that the <b>t</b> was wrongly uttered with a kind
+of effort, such as prevented its gliding on to the&nbsp;<b>i</b>.</p>
+
+<p><b>Th</b> nearly as in <i>then</i>, not as in <i>thin</i>.</p>
+
+<p><b>U</b> (consonant) or <b>V</b>.</p>
+
+<p>That the letter <b>u</b> 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 (<b>i</b> and <b>u</b>) seem quite
+other letters when used as consonants, and that it makes a great
+difference in which of these ways they are used:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;II. p.&nbsp;13.</small>] Videntur tamen <b>i</b>
+et <b>u</b> 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.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>The grammarians also state that this consonant <b>u</b> was
+represented by the Greek digamma, which the Romans called <i>vau</i>
+also.</p>
+
+<p>Marius Victorinus says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>I. iii. 44.</small>] Nam littera <b>u</b> vocalis est, sicut
+<b>a</b>, <b>e</b>, <b>i</b>, <b>o</b>, sed eadem vicem obtinet
+consonantis: cujus potestatis notam Graeci habent <span class = "greek"
+lang = "el" title = "Greek letter digamma">ϝ</span>, nostri <i>vau</i>
+vocant, et alii <i>digamma</i>; ea per se scripta non facit syllabam,
+anteposita autem vocali facit, ut <span class = "greek" lang = "el"
+title = "wamaxa, wekêbolos">ϝάμαξα, ϝεκήβολος</span> et <span class =
+"greek" lang = "el" title = "welenê">ϝελήνη</span>. Nos vero, qui non
+habemus hujus vocis nomen aut notam, in ejus locum quotiens una vocalis
+pluresve junctae unam syllabam faciunt, substituimus <b>u</b> litteram.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Now it is contended by some that this <i>digamma</i>, or <i>vau</i>,
+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 <b>u</b> consonant was.</p>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">30</span>
+<p>But we are expressly told that it had the force and sound of the
+Greek <i>digamma</i>.</p>
+
+<p>In Marius Victorinus we find:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;VI. p.&nbsp;23.</small>] <ins class = "correction"
+title = "printed as capital F, not digamma">F</ins> autem apud Aeolis
+dumtaxat idem valere quod apud nos <i>vau</i> cum pro consonante
+scribitur, vocarique <span class = "greek" lang = "el" title =
+"bau">βαυ</span> et <i>digamma</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Priscian explains more fully:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v. II. p. 15.</small>] <b>U</b> vero loco consonantis
+posita eandem prorsus in omnibus vim habuit apud Latinos quam apud
+Aeolis <i>digamma</i>. Unde a plerisque ei nomen hoc datur quod apud
+Aeolis habuit olim <span class = "greek" lang = "el">ϝ</span>
+<i>digamma</i>, id est <i>vau</i>, ab ipsius voce profectum teste
+Varrone et Didymo, qui id ei nomen esse ostendunt. Pro quo Caesar hanc
+<ins class = "correction greek" lang = "el" title = "upside-down digamma">[ϝ]</ins>
+figuram scribi voluit, quod quamvis illi recte visum
+est tamen consuetudo antiqua superavit. Adeo autem hoc verum est quod
+pro Aeolico <i>digamma</i> <span class = "greek" lang = "el">ϝ</span>
+<b>u</b> ponitur.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>What then was the sound of this Aeolic <i>digamma</i> or <span class
+= "greek" lang = "el" title = "bau">βαυ</span>?</p>
+
+<p>Priscian says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;II. p.&nbsp;11.</small>] <span class = "greek"
+lang = "el">ϝ</span> Aeolicum <i>digamma</i>, quod apud antiquissimos
+Latinorum eandem vim quam apud Aeolis habuit. Eum autem prope sonum quem
+nunc habet significabat <b>p</b> cum aspiratione, sicut etiam apud
+veteres Graecos pro <span class = "greek" lang = "el" title =
+"Greek letters phi, pi">φ π</span> et <span class = "greek" lang = "el" title =
+"archaic Greek letter Heta">Ͱ</span>; unde nunc quoque in Graecis
+nominibus antiquam scripturam servamus, pro <span class = "greek" lang =
+"el" title = "Greek letter phi">φ</span> <b>p</b> et <b>h</b> ponentes,
+ut <i>Orpheus</i>, <i>Phaethon</i>. Postea vero in Latinis verbis
+placuit pro p et&nbsp;h, f&nbsp;scribi, ut fama, filius, facio, loco
+autem <i>digamma</i> <b>u</b> pro consonante, quod cognatione soni
+videbatur affinis esse <i>digamma</i> ea littera.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>The Latin <b>u</b> consonant is here distinctly stated to be akin to
+the Greek <i>digamma</i> (<span class = "greek" lang = "el" title =
+"Greek letter digamma">ϝ</span>) in sound.</p>
+
+<p>Now the office of the Greek <i>digamma</i> was apparently manifold.
+It stood for <span class = "greek" lang = "el"
+title = "Greek letters sigma, beta">ς, β</span>
+(Eng. <b>v</b>), <span class = "greek" lang =
+"el" title = "Greek letters gamma, chi, phi">γ, χ, φ</span>, and for the
+breathings ‘rough’ and ‘smooth.’ Sometimes the sound of the
+<i>digamma</i> is given, we are told, where the character itself
+<span class = "pagenum">31</span>
+is not written. It is said that in the neighborhood of Olympia it is
+to-day pronounced, though not written, between two vowels as <span class
+= "greek" lang = "el" title = "Greek letter beta">β</span> (Eng.
+<b>v</b>). 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 <b>h</b>).</p>
+
+<p>The question then is, which of these various sounds of the digamma is
+represented by the Latin <b>u</b> consonant, or does it represent all,
+or none, of these.</p>
+
+<p>Speaking of <b>f</b>, Priscian says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;II. p.&nbsp;35.</small>] Antiqui Romanorum Aeolis
+sequentes loco aspirationis eam (<b>f</b>) ponebant, effugientes ipsi
+quoque aspirationem, et maxime cum consonante recusabant eam proferre in
+Latino sermone. Habebat autem haec <b>f</b> littera hunc sonum quem nunc
+habet <b>u</b> loco consonantis posita, unde antiqui <b>af</b> pro
+<b>ab</b> scribere solebant; sed quia non potest <i>vau</i>, id est
+<i>digamma</i>, in fine syllabae inveniri, ideo mutata in&nbsp;<b>b</b>.
+<i>Sifilum</i> quoque pro <i>sibilum</i> teste Nonio Marcello <i>de
+Doctorum Indagine</i> dicebant.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>And again:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Prisc. Keil. v.&nbsp;II. p.&nbsp;15.</small>] In <b>b</b> etiam
+solet apud Aeolis transire <span class = "greek" lang = "el" title =
+"Greek letter digamma">ϝ</span> <i>digamma</i> quotiens ab <span class =
+"greek" lang = "el" title = "Greek letter rho">ρ</span> incipit dictio
+quae solet aspirari, ut <span class = "greek" lang = "el" title =
+"rhêtôr, brêtôr">ῥήτωρ, βρήτωρ</span> dicunt, quod <i>digamma</i> nisi
+vocali praeponi et in principio syllabae non potest. Ideo autem locum
+transmutavit, quia <b>b</b> vel <i>digamma</i> post <span class =
+"greek" lang = "el" title = "Greek letter rho">ρ</span> in eadem syllaba
+pronuntiari non potest. Apud nos quoque est invenire quod pro <b>u</b>
+consonante <b>b</b> ponitur, ut <i>caelebs</i>, caelestium vitam ducens,
+per <b>b</b> scribitur, quod <b>u</b> consonans ante consonantem poni
+non potest. Sed etiam <i>Bruges</i> et <i>Belena</i> antiquissimi
+dicebant, teste Quintiliano, qui hoc ostendit in primo <i>institutionum
+oratoriarum</i>: nec mirum, cum <b>b</b> quoque in <b>u</b> euphoniae
+causa converti invenimus; ut <i>aufero</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Quint. I. v. 69.</small>] Frequenter autem praepositiones quoque
+copulatio ista corrumpit; inde <i>abstulit</i>, <i>aufugit</i>,
+<i>amisit</i>, cum praepositio sit <b>ab</b> sola.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">32</span>
+It is significant here that Cicero speaks of the change from <b>du</b>
+to <b>b</b> as a contraction. He says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Cic. Or. LXV.</small>] Quid vero licentius quam quod hominum
+etiam nomina contrahebant, quo essent aptiora? Nam ut <i>duellum</i>,
+<i>bellum</i>; et <i>duis</i>, <i>bis</i>; sic <i>Duellium</i> eum qui
+Poenos classe devicit <i>Bellium</i> nominaverunt, cum superiores
+appellati essent semper <i>Duellii</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>One cannot but feel in reading the numerous passages in the
+grammarians that treat of the sound of <b>u</b> consonant, that if its
+sound had been no other than the natural sound of <b>u</b> 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
+<b>i</b>&mdash;that of double <b>i</b>? What more natural than to speak
+of consonant <b>u</b> as “double <b>u</b>” (as&nbsp;we English do
+<b>w</b>). 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 <i>digamma</i> is rejected by the Romans, yet its force pursues
+them:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Quint. XII. x. 29.</small>] Aeolicae quoque litterae qua
+<i>servum cervum</i>que dicimus, etiamsi forma a nobis repudiata est,
+vis tamen nos ipsa persequitur.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>He gives it as his opinion that it would have been well to have
+adopted the <i>vau</i>, and says that neither by the old way of writing
+(by&nbsp;<b>uo</b>), nor by the modern way (by&nbsp;<b>uu</b>), is at
+all produced the sound which we perceive:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Quint. I. vii. 26.</small>] Nunc <b>u</b> gemina scribuntur
+(<i>servus</i> et <i>cervus</i>) ea ratione quam reddidi: neutro sane
+modo vox quam sentimus efficitur. Nec inutiliter Claudius Aeolicam illam
+ad hos usus litteram adjecerat.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">33</span>
+And again still more distinctly:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Id. ib. iv. 7, 8.</small>] 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 <i>seruus</i> et <i>uulgus</i>
+Aeolicum digammon desideratur.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>This need of a new symbol, recognized by authorities like Cicero and
+Quintilian, is not an insignificant point in the argument.</p>
+
+<p>Marius Victorinus says that Cicero adds <b>u</b> (consonant) to the
+other five consonants that are understood to assimilate certain other
+consonants coming before them:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Mar. Vict. I. iv. 64.</small>] Sed propriae sunt cognatae
+(consonantes) quae simili figuratione oris dicuntur, ut est <b>b</b>,
+<b>f</b>, <b>r</b>, <b>m</b>, <b>p</b>, quibus Cicero adjicit <b>u</b>,
+non eam quae accipitur pro vocali, sed eam quae consonantis obtinet
+vicem, et interposita vocali fit ut aliae quoque consonantes.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>He proceeds to illustrate with the proposition <b>ob</b>:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Id. ib. 67.</small>] <b>Ob</b> autem mutatur in cognatas easdem,
+ut <i>offert</i>, <i>officit</i>; et <i>ommovet</i>, <i>ommutescit</i>;
+et <i>oppandit</i>, <i>opperitur</i>; <i>ovvertit</i>, <i>ovvius</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Let any one, keeping in mind the distinctness with which the Romans
+uttered doubled consonants, attempt to pronounce <i>ovvius</i> on the
+theory of consonant <b>u</b> like English (<b>w</b>)&nbsp;(!).</p>
+
+<p>By the advocates of the <b>w</b> sound of the <b>v</b> much stress is
+laid upon the fact that the poets occasionally change the consonant into
+the vowel <b>u</b>, and <i>vice versa</i>; as Horace, Epode
+VIII.&nbsp;2:</p>
+
+<div class = "verse">
+<p>“Nivesque deducunt Jovem, nunc mare nunc siluæ̈;”</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">34</span>
+Or Lucretius, in II. 232:</p>
+
+<div class = "verse">
+<p>“Propterea quia corpus aquae naturaque tenvis.”</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Such single instances suggest, indeed, a common origin in the
+<b>u</b> and <b>v</b>, 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 <i>ed</i> in participle endings.</p>
+
+<p>Another argument used in support of the <b>w</b> sound is taken from
+the words of Nigidius Figulus.</p>
+
+<p>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 <i>vos</i> and <i>nos</i>, <i>tu</i> and <i>ego</i>,
+<i>tibi</i> and <i>mihi</i>:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Aul. Gell. X. iv. 4.</small>] <i>Vos</i>, 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
+<i>nos</i> 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 <i>tu</i> et <i>ego</i>;
+et <i>tibi</i> et <i>mihi</i>. 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.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>But a little careful examination will show that this passage favors
+the other side rather.</p>
+
+<p>The first part of the description: “labias sensim primores emovemus,”
+will apply to either sound, <i>vos</i> or <i>wos</i>, although better,
+as will appear upon consulting the mirror, to <i>vos</i> than to
+<i>wos</i>; but the second: “ac spiritum atque animam porro versum et ad
+eos quibuscum sermonicamur intendimus,”
+<span class = "pagenum">35</span>
+will certainly apply far better to <i>vos</i> than to <i>wos</i>. In
+<i>wos</i> we get the “projectis labiis” to some extent, although not so
+marked as in <i>vos</i>; but we do not get anything like the same
+“profuso intentoque flatu vocis” as in <i>vos</i>.</p>
+
+<p>The same may be said of the argument drawn from the anecdote related
+by Cicero in his <i>de Divinatione</i>:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Cic. de Div. XL. 84.</small>] Cum M. Crassus exercitum Brundisii
+imponeret, quidam in portu caricas Cauno advectas vendens “Cauneas!”
+clamitabat. Dicamus, si placet, monitum ab eo Crassum <i>caveret ne
+iret</i>, non fuisse periturum si omini paruisset.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>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 <b>u</b>
+in such a connection is at present pronounced like our <b>f</b> or
+<b>v</b>, and we know of no time when it was pronounced like our
+<b>u</b>, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the fig-seller
+was crying “Cafneas!”&mdash;a sound far more suggestive of
+<i>Cave-ne-eas!</i> than “<i>Cauneas!</i>” of <i>Cawe ne eas!</i></p>
+
+<p>But beyond the testimony, direct and indirect, of grammarians and
+classic writers, an argument against the <b>w</b> sound appears in the
+fact that this sound is not found in Greek (from which the <i>vau</i> is
+borrowed), nor in Italian or kindred Romance languages.</p>
+
+<p>The initial <b>u</b> in Italian represents not Latin <b>u</b>
+consonant, but some other letter, as <b>h</b>, in <i>uomo</i> (for
+<i>homo</i>). On the other hand we find the <b>v</b> sound, as
+<i>vedova</i> (from <i>vidua</i>),&mdash;notice the two <b>v</b>
+sounds,&mdash;or the <b>u</b> sometimes changed to <b>b</b>, as
+<i>serbare</i> from <i>servare</i>; <i>bibita</i> and <i>bevanda</i>,
+both from <i>bibo</i>.</p>
+
+<p>In French we find the Latin <b>u</b> consonant passing into <b>f</b>,
+as <i>ovum</i> into <i>œuf</i>; <i>novem</i> into <i>neuf</i>.</p>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">36</span>
+<p>It seems not improbable that in Cicero’s time and later the consonant
+<b>u</b> represented some variation of sound, that its value varied in
+the direction of <b>b</b> or <b>f</b>, and possibly, in some Greek words
+especially, it was more vocalized, as in <i>vae!</i> (Greek <span class
+= "greek" lang = "el" title = "ouai">ουάι</span>). Yet here it is worthy
+of note that the corresponding words in Italian are not written with
+<b>u</b> but with <i>gu</i>, as <i>guai!</i></p>
+
+<p>In considering the sound of Latin <i>u</i> consonant we must always
+keep in mind that the question is one of time,&mdash;not, was <i>u</i>
+ever pronounced as English <i>w</i>; 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:
+<b>ŭa ŭe ŭi ŭo</b>, <b>wa we wi wo wu</b>, <b>v’a v’e v’i v’o v’u</b>,
+<b>va ve vi vo vu</b>.”</p>
+
+<p>Now the question is: At what point along this line do we find the
+<b>u</b> consonant of the golden age? Roby, though not agreeing with
+Ellis in rejecting the English <b>w</b> sound, as the representative of
+that period, declares himself “quite content to think that a labial
+<b>v</b> was provincially contemporary and in the end generally
+superseded it.”</p>
+
+<p>But ‘provincialisms’ do not seem sufficient to account for the use of
+<span class = "greek" lang = "el" title = "Greek letter beta">β</span>
+for <b>u</b> consonant in inscriptions and in writers of the first
+century. For instance, <i>Nerva</i> and <i>Severus</i> in contemporary
+inscriptions are written both with <span class = "greek" lang = "el"
+title = "ou">ου</span> and with <span class = "greek" lang = "el" title
+= "Greek letter beta">β</span>: <span class = "greek" lang = "el" title
+= "Neroua, Nerba">Νέρουα, Νέρβα</span>; <span class = "greek" lang =
+"el" title = "Seouêros, Sebêros">Σεουῆρος, Σεβῆρος</span>. And in
+Plutarch we find numerous instances of <span class = "greek" lang = "el"
+title = "Greek letter beta">β</span> taking the place of <span class =
+"greek" lang = "el" title = "ou">ου</span>.</p>
+
+<p>It is true that the instances in which we find <span class = "greek"
+lang = "el" title = "Greek letter beta">β</span> taking the place of
+<span class = "greek" lang = "el" title = "ou">ου</span> in the first
+century, and earlier, are decidedly in the minority, but when we
+recollect that <span class = "greek" lang = "el" title = "ou">ου</span>
+was the original and natural representative of the Latin <b>u</b>, the
+fact that a
+<span class = "pagenum">37</span>
+change was made at all is of great weight, and one instance of <span
+class = "greek" lang = "el" title = "Greek letter beta">β</span> for
+<b>u</b> would outweigh a dozen instances of the old
+form,&nbsp;<b>ou</b>. 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 <b>u</b>, and one that approached, at least, their <span
+class = "greek" lang = "el" title = "Greek letter beta">β</span> (Eng.
+<b>v</b>).</p>
+
+<p>Nor, in this connection, should we fail to notice the words in Latin
+where <b>u</b> consonant is represented by <b>b</b>, such as
+<i>bubile</i> from <i>bovile</i>, <i>defervi</i> and <i>deferbui</i>
+from <i>deferveo</i>.</p>
+
+<p>In concluding the argument for the labial <b>v</b> sound of
+consonantal <b>u</b>, 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
+<b>w</b> 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 <b>w</b> in Latin, because no Continental nation can adopt a sound
+they cannot pronounce.”</p>
+
+<p><b>X</b> has the same sound as in English.</p>
+
+<p>Marius Victorinus says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. t. VI. p.&nbsp;32.</small>] Dehinc duae supremae <b>s</b>
+et <b>x</b> 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 <b>c</b> et <b>s</b>, quarum et locum implet et vim
+exprimit, ut sensu aurium ducamur efficitur.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Again:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Id. ib. p.&nbsp;5.</small>] <b>X</b> autem per <b>c</b> et
+<b>s</b> possemus scribere.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">38</span>
+And:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+Posteaquam a Graecis <span class = "greek" lang = "el" title =
+"Greek letter xi">ξ</span>, et a nobis <b>x</b>, recepta est, abiit et illorum
+et nostra perplexa ratio, et in primis observatio Nigidii, qui in libris
+suis <b>x</b> littera non est usus, antiquitatem sequens.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p><b>X</b> suffers a long vowel before it, being composed of the
+<b>c</b> (the only mute that allows a long vowel before&nbsp;it) and
+the&nbsp;<b>s</b>.</p>
+
+<p><b>Z</b> probably had a sound akin to <b>ds</b> in English. After
+giving the sound of <b>x</b> as <b>cs</b>, Marius Victorinus goes on to
+speak of <b>z</b> thus:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;VI. p.&nbsp;5.</small>] Sic et <b>z</b>, si modo
+latino sermoni necessaria esset, per <b>d</b> et <b>s</b> litteras
+faceremus.
+</blockquote>
+
+
+<h4 class = "smallcaps"><a name = "why_quantity" id = "why_quantity">
+Quantity.</a></h4>
+
+<p>A syllable in Latin may consist of from one to six letters, as
+<i>a</i>, <i>ab</i>, <i>ars</i>, <i>Mars</i>, <i>stans</i>,
+<i>stirps</i>.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>On these points Priscian says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+Si antecedens syllaba terminat in consonantem necesse est et sequentem a
+consonante incipere; ut <i>artus</i>, <i>ille</i>, <i>arduus</i>; nisi
+fit compositum: ut <i>abeo</i>, <i>adeo</i>, <i>pereo</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<blockquote>
+Nam in simplicibus dictionibus necesse est <b>s</b> et <b>c</b> ejusdem
+esse syllabae, ut <i>pascua</i>, <i>luscus</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">39</span>
+<blockquote>
+<p><b>M</b> quoque, vel <b>p</b>, vel <b>t</b>, in simplicibus
+dictionibus, si antecedat <b>s</b>, ejusdem est syllabae, ut
+<i>cosmos</i>, <i>perspirare</i>, <i>testis</i>.</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<blockquote>
+In semivocalibus similiter sunt praepositivae aliis semivocalibus in
+eadem syllaba; ut <b>m</b> sequente <b>n</b>, ut <i>Mnesteus</i>,
+<i>amnis</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Each letter has its ‘time,’ or ‘times.’ Thus a short vowel has the
+time of one beat (<i>mora</i>); a long vowel, of two beats;
+a&nbsp;single consonant, of a half beat; a&nbsp;double consonant, of one
+beat. Theoretically, therefore, a&nbsp;syllable may have as many as
+three, or even four, <i>tempora</i>; but practically only two are
+recognized. All over two are disregarded and each syllable is simply
+counted ‘short’ (one beat) or ‘long’ (two beats).</p>
+
+<p>Priscian says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;II. p.&nbsp;52.</small>] In longis natura vel
+positione duo sunt tempora, ut <i>do</i>, <i>ars</i>; duo semis, quando
+post vocalem natura longam una sequitur consonans, ut <i>sol</i>; tria,
+quando post vocalem natura longam duae consonantes sequuntur, vel una
+duplex, ut <i>mons</i>, <i>rex</i>. Tamen in metro necesse est
+unamquamque syllabam vel unius vel duorum accipi temporum.
+</blockquote>
+
+
+<h4 class = "smallcaps"><a name = "why_accent" id = "why_accent">
+Accent.</a></h4>
+
+<p>The grammarians tell us that every syllable has three dimensions,
+length, breadth and height, or <i>tenor</i>, <i>spiritus</i>,
+<i>tempus</i>:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. Supp.&nbsp;p.&nbsp;XVIII.</small>] Habet etiam unaquaeque
+syllaba altitudinem, latitudinem et longitudinem; altitudinem in tenore;
+crassitudinem vel latitudinem, in spiritu; longitudinem in tempore.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Diomedes says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;I. p.&nbsp;430.</small>] Accentus est dictus ab
+accinendo, quod sit quasi quidam cujusque syllabae cantus.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>And Cicero:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Cic. Or. XVIII.</small>] Ipsa enim natura, quasi modularetur
+hominem orationem, in omni verbo posuit acutam vocem, nec una plus, nec
+a postrema syllaba citra tertiam.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">40</span>
+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.</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Diom. Keil. v.&nbsp;I. p.&nbsp;430.</small>] Sunt vero tres,
+acutus, gravis, et qui ex duobus constat circumflexus. Ex his, acutus in
+correptis semper, interdum productis syllabis versatur; inflexus
+(or&nbsp;‘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.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>The same writer thus gives the place of each accent:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;I. p.&nbsp;431.</small>] (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
+<i>ab</i>, <i>mel</i>, <i>fel</i>; et, si positione longa fuerit, acutum
+similiter tenorem habebit, ut <i>ars</i>, <i>pars</i>, <i>pix</i>,
+<i>nix</i>, <i>fax</i>. Sin autem longa natura fuerit, flectetur, ut
+<i>lux</i>, <i>spes</i>, <i>flos</i>, <i>sol</i>, <i>mons</i>,
+<i>fons</i>, <i>lis</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<blockquote>
+Omnis vox dissyllaba priorem syllabam aut acuit aut flectit. Acuit, vel
+cum brevis est utraque, ut <i>deus</i>, <i>citus</i>, <i>datur</i>,
+<i>arat</i>; vel cum positione longa est utraque, ut <i>sollers</i>; vel
+alterutra positione longa dum ne natura longa sit, prior, ut
+<i>pontus</i>; posterior, ut <i>cohors</i>. Si vero prior syllaba natura
+longa et sequens brevis fuerit, flectitur prior, ut <i>luna</i>,
+<i>Roma</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<blockquote>
+In trisyllabis autem et tetrasyllabis et deinceps, secunda ab ultima
+semper observanda est. Haec, si natura longa fuerit, inflectitur, ut
+<i>Romanus</i>, <i>Cethegus</i>, <i>marinus</i>, <i>Crispinus</i>,
+<i>amicus</i>, <i>Sabinus</i>, <i>Quirinus</i>, <i>lectica</i>. Si vero
+eadem paenultima positione longa fuerit, acuetur, ut <i>Metellus</i>,
+<i>Catullus</i>, <i>Marcellus</i>; ita tamen si positione longa non ex
+muta et liquida fuerit. Nam mutabit accentum, ut <i>latebrae</i>,
+<i>tenebrae</i>. Et si novissima natura longa itemque paenultima, sive
+natura sive positione longa fuerit, paenultima tantum acuetur, non
+inflectetur; sic, natura, ut <i>Fidenae</i>,
+<span class = "pagenum">41</span>
+<i>Athenae</i>, <i>Thebae</i>, <i>Cymae</i>; positione, ut
+<i>tabellae</i>, <i>fenestrae</i>. Sin autem media et novissima breves
+fuerint, prima servabit acutum tenorem, ut <i>Sergius</i>,
+<i>Mallius</i>, <i>ascia</i>, <i>fuscina</i>, <i>Julius</i>,
+<i>Claudius</i>. Si omnes tres syllabae longae fuerint, media acuetur,
+ut <i>Romani</i>, <i>legati</i>, <i>praetores</i>, <i>praedones</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Priscian thus defines the accents:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;III. p.&nbsp;519.</small>] Acutus namque accentus
+ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod
+deprimat aut deponat; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Then after giving the place of the accent he notes some disturbing
+influences, which cause exceptions to the general rule:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;III. pp.&nbsp;519-521.</small>] Tres quidem res
+accentuum regulas conturbant; distinguendi ratio; pronuntiandi
+ambiguitas; atque necessitas.&nbsp;.&nbsp;.&nbsp;.
+</blockquote>
+
+<blockquote>
+Ratio namque distinguendi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis
+pronuntians dicat <i>poné</i> et <i>ergó</i>, quod apud Latinos in
+ultima syllaba nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: ex hoc
+est quod diximus <i>poné</i> et <i>ergó</i>. Ideo <i>poné</i> dicimus ne
+putetur verbum esse imperativi modi, hoc est <i>pōne</i>; <i>ergó</i>
+ideo dicimus ne putetur conjunctio rationalis, quod est <i>érgo</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+<blockquote>
+Ambiguitas vero pronuntiandi legem accentuum saepe conturbat. Siquis
+dicat <i>interealoci</i>, qui nescit, alteram partem dicat
+<i>interea</i>, alteram <i>loci</i>, quod non separatim sed sub uno
+accentu pronuntiandum est, ne ambiguitatem in sermone faciat.
+</blockquote>
+
+<blockquote>
+Necessitas pronuntiationis regulam, corrumpit, ut puta siquis dicat in
+primis <i>doctus</i>, addat <i>que</i> conjunctionem, dicatque
+<i>doctusque</i>, ecce in pronuntiatione accentum mutavit, cum non in
+secunda syllaba, sed in prima, accentum habere debuit.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>He also states the law that determines the kind of accent to be
+used:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Id. ib. p.&nbsp;521.</small>] Syllaba quae correptam vocalem
+habet acuto accentu pronuntiatur, ut <i>páx</i>, <i>fáx</i>, <i>píx</i>,
+<i>níx</i>, <i>dúx</i>, <i>núx</i>, quae etiam tali accentu pronuntianda
+est, quamvis sit longa positione, quia
+<span class = "pagenum">42</span>
+naturaliter brevis est. Quae vero naturaliter producta est circumflexo
+accentu exprimenda est ut, <i>rês</i>, <i>dôs</i>, <i>spês</i>.
+Dissyllabae vero quae priorem productam habent et posteriorem correptam,
+priorem syllabam circumflectunt, ut <i>mêta</i>, <i>Crêta</i>. Illae
+vero quae sunt ambae longae vel prior brevis et ulterior longa acuto
+accento pronuntiandae sunt, ut <i>népos</i>, <i>léges</i>, <i>réges</i>.
+Hae vero quae sunt ambae breves similiter acuto accentu proferuntur, ut
+<i>bonus</i>, <i>melos</i>. Sed notandum quod si prior sit longa
+positione non circumflexo, sed acuto, accentu pronuntianda est, ut
+<i>arma</i>, <i>arcus</i>, quae, quamvis sit longa positione, tamen
+exprimenda est tali accentu quia non est naturalis.
+</blockquote>
+
+<blockquote>
+Trisyllabae namque et tetrasyllabae sive deinceps, si paenultimam
+correptam habuerint, antepaenultimam acuto accentu proferunt, ut
+<i>Túllius</i>, <i>Hostílius</i>. Nam paenultima, si positione longa
+fuerit, acuetur, antepaenultima vero gravabitur, ut <i>Catúllus</i>,
+<i>Metéllus</i>. Si vero ex muta et liquida longa in versu esse constat,
+in oratione quoque accentum mutat, ut <i>latébrae</i>, <i>tenébrae</i>.
+Syllaba vero ultima, si brevis sit et paenultimam naturaliter longam
+habuerit ipsam paenultimam circumflectit, ut <i>Cethêgus</i>,
+<i>perôsus</i>. Ultima quoque, si naturaliter longa fuerit, paenultimam
+acuet, ut <i>Athénae</i>, <i>Mycénae</i>. 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 <i>natura</i>, ut quando dico <i>natu</i> elevatur vox, et est
+arsis intus; quando vero sequitur <i>ra</i> 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.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>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 <i>ánte</i> and <i>anté</i>; or
+between
+<span class = "pagenum">43</span>
+the same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as <i>réges</i> and
+<i>regés</i>; and in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as
+<i>finīt</i> (for <i>finivit</i>).</p>
+
+<p>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&nbsp;in English, we please ourselves in saying
+<i>pérfect</i> or <i>perféct</i>). 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 <i>doce</i>, if we duly shorten the
+<b>o</b> and lengthen the <b>e</b> the effect will be correct, whether
+the ear of the grammarian detect accent on the final syllable, or not.
+For as Quintilian well says:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+Nam ut color oculorum indicio, sapor palati, odor narium dinoscitur, ita
+sonus aurium arbitrio subjectus est.
+</blockquote>
+
+
+<h4 class = "smallcaps"><a name = "why_pitch" id = "why_pitch">
+Pitch.</a></h4>
+
+<p>But besides the length of the syllable, and the place and quality of
+the accent, another matter claims attention.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Keil. v.&nbsp;III. p.&nbsp;519.</small>] Acutus namque accentus
+ideo inventus est quod acuat sive elevet syllabam; gravis vero eo quod
+deprimat aut deponet; circumflexus ideo quod deprimat et acuat.
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+<span class = "pagenum">44</span>
+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&mdash;perhaps many&mdash;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 <i>quiêsco</i> or <i>quiésco</i>,
+<i>ăctito</i> or <i>āctito</i>:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Aul. Gell. VI. xv.</small>] Amicus noster, homo multi studii
+atque in bonarum disciplinarum opere frequens, verbum <i>quiescit</i>
+usitate <b>e</b> 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 <i>quiescit</i> ita oportere dici
+praedicavit, ut <i>calescit</i>, <i>nitescit</i>, <i>stupescit</i>,
+atque alia hujuscemodi multa. Id etiam addebat, quod <i>quies</i>
+<b>e</b> 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 <i>quiesco</i> non esse his simile
+quae supra posui, nec a <i>quiete</i> dictum, sed ab eo <i>quietem</i>;
+Graecaeque vocis <span class = "greek" lang = "el"
+title = "eschon kai eskon">ἔσχον καὶ ἔσκον</span>,
+Ionice a verbo <span class = "greek" lang
+= "el" title = "eschô ischô">ἔσχω ἴσχω</span>, et modum et originem
+verbum illud habere demonstravit. Rationibusque haud sane frigidis
+docuit <i>quiesco</i> <b>e</b> littera longa dici non convenire.
+</blockquote>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">45</span>
+<blockquote>
+[<small>Aul. Gell. IX. vi.</small>] Ab eo, quod est <i>ago</i> et
+<i>egi</i>, verba sunt quae appellant grammatici frequentativa,
+<i>actito</i> et <i>actitavi</i>. Haec quosdam non sane indoctos viros
+audio ita pronuntiare ut primam in his litteram corripiant; rationemque
+dicant, quoniam in verbo principali, quod est <i>ago</i>, prima littera
+breviter pronuntiatur. Cur igitur ab eo quod est <i>edo</i> et
+<i>ungo</i>, in quibus verbis prima littera breviter dicitur,
+<i>esito</i> et <i>unctito</i>, quae sunt eorum frequentativa prima
+littera longa promimus? et contra, <i>dictito</i>, ab eo verbo quod est
+<i>dico</i>, correpte dicimus? Num ergo potius <i>actito</i> et
+<i>actitavi</i> 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
+<i>lego</i>, <i>lectus</i>, <i>lectito</i> facit; <i>ungo</i>,
+<i>unctus</i>, <i>unctito</i>; <i>scribo</i>, <i>scriptus</i>,
+<i>scriptito</i>; <i>moneo</i>, <i>monitus</i>, <i>monito</i>;
+<i>pendeo</i>, <i>pensus</i>, <i>pensito</i>; <i>edo</i>, <i>esus</i>,
+<i>esito</i>; <i>dico</i>, autem, <i>dictus</i>, <i>dictito</i> facit;
+<i>gero</i>, <i>gestus</i>, <i>gestito</i>; <i>veho</i>, <i>vectus</i>,
+<i>vectito</i>; <i>rapio</i>, <i>raptus</i>, <i>raptito</i>;
+<i>capio</i>, <i>captus</i>, <i>captito</i>; <i>facio</i>,
+<i>factus</i>, <i>factito</i>. Sic igitur <i>actito</i> producte in
+prima syllaba pronuntiandum, quoniam ex eo fit quod est <i>ago</i> et
+<i>actus</i>.
+</blockquote>
+
+</div>
+
+
+<div class = "chapter">
+
+<span class = "pagenum">46</span>
+
+<h3><a name = "partII" id = "partII">PART II.</a><br>
+<b>HOW TO USE IT.</b></h3>
+
+<p><span class = "firstword">The</span> directions now to be given may
+be fittingly introduced by a few paragraphs from Professor Munro’s
+pamphlet on the pronunciation of Latin, already more than once quoted
+from. He says&mdash;and part of this has been cited before:</p>
+
+<p>“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&nbsp;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. With the same amount of evidence,
+direct and indirect, we have for Latin, it would not, I&nbsp;think, be
+worth anybody’s while to try to recover the pronunciation of French or
+English; it might, I&nbsp;think, be worth his while to try to recover
+that of German or Italian, in which sound and spelling accord more
+nearly, and accent obeys more determinable laws.”</p>
+
+<p>“I am convinced,” he says in another place, “that the mainstay of an
+efficient reform is the adoption essentially of the Italian vowel
+system: it combines beauty, firmness and precision in a degree not
+equalled by any other system of which I have any knowledge. The little
+ragged boys in the streets of Rome and Florence enunciate their vowels
+in a style of which princes might be proud.”</p>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">47</span>
+<p>And again:</p>
+
+<p>“I do not propose that every one should learn Italian in order to
+learn Latin. What I would suggest is, that those who know Italian should
+make use of their knowledge and should in many points take Italian
+sounds for the model to be followed; that those who do not know it
+should try to learn from others the sounds required, or such an
+approximation to them as may be possible in each case.”</p>
+
+<p>We may then sum up the results at which we have arrived in the
+following directions:</p>
+
+<p>First of all pay particular attention to the vowel sounds, to make
+them full and distinct, taking the Italian model, if you know Italian,
+and always observing strictly the quantity.</p>
+
+<p>Pronounce</p>
+
+<div class = "list">
+<p><b>ā</b> as in Italian <i>fato</i>; or as final <b>a</b> in aha!</p>
+
+<p><b>ă</b> as in Italian <i>fatto</i>; or as initial <b>a</b> in aha!
+or as in fast (not as in fat).</p>
+
+<p><b>ē</b> as second <b>e</b> in Italian <i>fedele</i>; or as in fête
+(not fate); or as in vein.</p>
+
+<p><b>ĕ</b> as in Italian <i>fetta</i>; or as in very.</p>
+
+<p><b>ī</b> as first <b>i</b> in Italian <i>timide</i>; or as in
+caprice.</p>
+
+<p><b>ĭ</b> as second <b>i</b> in Italian <i>timide</i>; or as in
+capricious.</p>
+
+<p><b>ĭ</b> or <b>ŭ</b>, where the spelling varies between the two (e.g.
+<i>maximus</i>, <i>maxumus</i>), as in German Müller.</p>
+
+<p><b>ō</b> as first <b>o</b> in Italian <i>orlo</i>; or as in more.</p>
+
+<p><b>ŏ</b> as first <b>o</b> in Italian <i>rotto</i>; or as in wholly
+(not as in holly).</p>
+
+<p><b>ū</b> as in Italian <i>rumore</i>; or as in rural,</p>
+
+<p><b>ŭ</b> as in Italian <i>ruppe</i>; or as in puss (not as in
+fuss).</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Let <b>i</b> in <b>vĭ</b> before <b>d</b>, <b>t</b>, <b>m</b>,
+<b>r</b> or <b>x</b>, in the first syllable of a word, be pronounced
+quite obscurely, somewhat as first <b>i</b> in virgin.</p>
+
+<p>In the matter of diphthongs, be sure to take always the correct
+spelling, to begin with, and thus avoid what Munro
+<span class = "pagenum">48</span>
+justly terms “hateful barbarisms like <i>coelum</i>, <i>coena</i>,
+<i>moestus</i>.” Much time is wasted by students and bad habits are
+acquired in not finding, at the outset, the right spelling of each word
+and holding to it. This each student must do for himself, consulting a
+good dictionary, as editors and editions are not always to be depended
+on. Here it is the diphthongs that present the chief difficulty and call
+for the greatest care.</p>
+
+<p>In pronouncing diphthongs sound both vowels, but glide so rapidly
+from the first to the second as to offer to the ear but a single sound.
+In the publication of the Cambridge (Eng.) Philological Society on
+“Pronunciation of Latin in the Augustan Period,” the following
+directions are given:</p>
+
+<p>“The pronunciation of these diphthongs, of which the last three are
+extremely rare, is best learnt by first sounding each vowel separately
+and then running them together, <b>ae</b> as ah-eh, <b>au</b> as ah-oo,
+<b>oe</b> as o-eh, <b>ei</b> as eh-ee, <b>eu</b> as eh-oo, and <b>ui</b>
+as oo-ee.”</p>
+
+<p>Thus:</p>
+
+<table summary = "pronunciations">
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">ae</td>
+<td>
+<p>(ah-éh) as in German <i>näher</i>; or as <b>ea</b> in pear; or
+<b>ay</b> in aye (ever); (not like <b>ā</b> in fate nor like <b>ai</b>
+in aisle).</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">ai</td>
+<td>
+<p>(ah-ée) as in aye (yes).</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">au</td>
+<td>
+<p>(ah-óo) as in German <i>Haus</i>, with more of the <b>u</b> sound
+than <b>ou</b> in house.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">ei</td>
+<td>
+<p>(eh-ée) nearly as in veil. (In <i>dein</i>, <i>deinde</i>, the
+<b>ei</b> is not a diphthong, but the <b>e</b>, when not forming a
+distinct syllable, is elided.)</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">eu</td>
+<td>
+<p>(eh-óo) as in Italian <i>Europa</i>. (In <i>neuter</i> and
+<i>neutiquam</i> elide the&nbsp;<b>e</b>.)</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">oe</td>
+<td>
+<p>(o-éh) nearly like German <b>ö</b> in <i>Goethe</i>.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">oi</td>
+<td>
+<p>is not found in the classical period. (In <i>proin</i>,
+<i>proinde</i>, the <b>o</b> is either elided or forms a distinct
+syllable. <b>ou</b> in <i>prout</i> is not a diphthong; the <b>u</b> is
+either elided or forms a distinct syllable.)</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">ui</td>
+<td>
+<p>(oo-ée) as in cuirass.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+</table>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">49</span>
+<p>In the pronunciation of consonants certain points claim special
+attention. And first among these is the sounding of the doubled
+consonants. Whoever has heard Italian spoken recognizes one of its
+greatest beauties to be the distinctness, yet smoothness, with which its
+<b>ll</b> and <b>rr</b> and <b>cc</b>&mdash;in short, all its doubled
+consonants&mdash;are pronounced. No feature of the language is more
+charming. And one who attempts the same in Latin and perseveres, with
+whatever difficulty and pains, will be amply rewarded in the music of
+the language.</p>
+
+<p>A good working rule for pronouncing doubled consonants is to hold the
+first until ready to pronounce the second: as in the words <i>we’ll lie
+till late</i>, not to be pronounced as <i>we lie till eight</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Next in importance, and, in New England at least, first in
+difficulty, is the trilling of the&nbsp;<b>r</b>. There can be no
+approximation to a satisfactory pronunciation of Latin until this
+<b>r</b> is acquired; but the satisfaction in the result when
+accomplished is well worth all the pains taken.</p>
+
+<p>Another point to be observed is that the dentals <b>t</b>, <b>d</b>,
+<b>n</b>, <b>l</b>, require that the tongue touch the teeth, rather than
+the palate. Munro says: “<b>d</b> and <b>t</b> we treat with our usual
+slovenliness, and force them up to the roof of our mouth: we should make
+them real dentals, as no doubt the Romans made them, and then we shall
+see how readily <i>ad at</i>, <i>apud aput</i>, <i>illud illut</i> and
+the like interchange.” This requires care, but amply repays the
+effort.</p>
+
+<p>It is necessary also to remember that <b>n</b> before a guttural is
+pronounced as in the same position in English, e.g., in <i>ancora</i> as
+in anchor; in <i>anxius</i> as in anxious; in <i>relinquo</i> as in
+relinquish.</p>
+
+<p>Remember to make <b>n</b> before <b>f</b> or <b>s</b> a mere nasal,
+having as little prominence otherwise as possible, and to carefully
+lengthen the preceding vowel.</p>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">50</span>
+<p>Studiously observe the length of the vowel before the terminations
+<i>gnus</i>, <i>gna</i>, <i>gnum</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Remember that the final syllable in <b>m</b>, when not elided, is to
+be pronounced as lightly and rapidly as possible, the more lightly and
+indistinctly the better.</p>
+
+<p>Remember that <b>s</b> must not be pronounced as <b>z</b>, except
+where it represents <b>z</b> in Greek words, as Smyrna (Zmyrna),
+Smaragdus (Zmaragdus), otherwise always pronounce as in sis.</p>
+
+<p>Remember in pronouncing <b>v</b> to direct the lower lip toward the
+upper lip, avoiding the upper teeth.</p>
+
+<p>In general, in pronouncing the consonants conform to the following
+scheme:</p>
+
+<table summary = "pronunciations">
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">b</td>
+<td>
+<p>as in blab.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">b</td>
+<td>
+<p>before <b>s</b> or <b>t</b>, sharpened to <b>p</b>, as <i>urbs =
+urps</i>; <i>obtinuit = optinuit</i>.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">c</td>
+<td>
+<p>as sceptic (never as in sceptre).</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">ch</td>
+<td>
+<p>as in chemist (never as in cheer or chivalry).</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">d</td>
+<td>
+<p>as in did, but made more dental than in English.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">d</td>
+<td>
+<p>final, before a word beginning with a consonant, in particles
+especially, often sharpened to <b>t</b> as in tid-bit (tit-bit).</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">f</td>
+<td>
+<p>as in fief, but with more breath than in English.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">g</td>
+<td>
+<p>as in gig (never as in gin).</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">gn</td>
+<td>
+<p>in terminations <i>gnus</i>, <i>gna</i>, <i>gnum</i>, makes preceding
+vowel long.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">h</td>
+<td>
+<p>as in hah!</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">i</td>
+<td>
+<p>(consonant) as in onion.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">k</td>
+<td>
+<p>as in kink.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">l</td>
+<td>
+<p>initial and final, as in lull.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">l</td>
+<td>
+<p>medial, as in lullaby, always more dental than in English.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">m</td>
+<td>
+<p>initial and medial, as in membrane.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">m</td>
+<td>
+<p>before <b>q</b>, nasalized.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">m</td>
+<td>
+<p>final, when not elided, touched lightly and obscurely, somewhat as in
+tandem (tandm); or as in the Englishman’s pronunciation of Blenheim
+(Blenhm), Birmingham (Birminghm).</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">n</td>
+<td>
+<span class = "pagenum">51</span>
+<p>initial and final, as in nine.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">n</td>
+<td>
+<p>medial, as in damnable, always more dental than in English.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">n</td>
+<td>
+<p>before <b>c</b>, <b>g</b>, <b>q</b>, <b>x</b>, as in concord, anger,
+sinker, relinquish, anxious, the tongue not touching the roof of the
+mouth.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">n</td>
+<td>
+<p>before <b>f</b> or <b>s</b>, nasal, lengthening the preceding vowel,
+as in <i>renaissance</i>.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">p</td>
+<td>
+<p>as in pup.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">q</td>
+<td>
+<p>as in quick.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">r</td>
+<td>
+<p>as in roar, but trilled, as in Italian or French. (This is most
+important.)</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">s</td>
+<td>
+<p>as in sis (never as in his).</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">t</td>
+<td>
+<p>as in tot, but more dental than in English (never as in motion).</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">th</td>
+<td>
+<p>nearly as in then (never as in thin).</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">v</td>
+<td>
+<p>(<b>u</b> consonant) nearly as in verve, but labial, rather than
+labio-dental; like the German <b>w</b> (not like the English <b>w</b>).
+Make English <b>v</b> as nearly as may be done without <ins class =
+"correction" title = "text reads ‘touch-’ at line-end">touching</ins>
+the lower lip to the upper teeth.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">x</td>
+<td>
+<p>as in six.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td class = "letter">z</td>
+<td>
+<p>nearly as <b>dz</b> in adze.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+<td>
+<p>Doubled consonants to be pronounced each distinctly, by holding the
+first until ready to pronounce the second.</p>
+</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+<p>As Professor Ellis well puts it: “No relaxation of the organs, no
+puff of wind or grunt of voice should intervene between the two parts of
+a doubled consonant, which should more resemble separated parts of one
+articulation than two separate articulations.”</p>
+
+<p>“Duplication of consonants is consequently regarded simply as the
+energetic utterance of a single consonant.”</p>
+
+
+<h4 class = "smallcaps"><a name = "how_elision" id = "how_elision">
+Elision.</a></h4>
+
+<p>Professor Ellis believes that the <b>m</b> was always omitted in
+speaking and the following consonant pronounced as if doubled (<i>quorum
+pars</i> as <i>quoruppars</i>). Final <b>m</b> at the end
+<span class = "pagenum">52</span>
+of a sentence he thinks was not heard at all. Where a vowel followed he
+thinks that the <b>m</b> was not heard, the vowel before being slurred
+on to the initial vowel of the following word.</p>
+
+<p>The Cambridge (Eng.) Philological Society, however, takes the view
+that “final vowels (or&nbsp;diphthongs) when followed by vowels
+(or&nbsp;diphthongs) were not cut off, but lightly run on to the
+following word, as in Italian. But if the vowel was the same the effect
+was that of a single sound.”</p>
+
+<p>Professor Munro says:</p>
+
+<p>“In respect of elision I would only say that, by comparing Plautus
+with Ovid, we may see how much the elaborate cultivation of the language
+had tended to a more distinct sounding of final syllables; and that but
+for Virgil’s powerful influence the elision of long vowels would have
+almost ceased. Clearly we must not altogether pass over the elided vowel
+or syllable in <b>m</b>, except perhaps in the case of <b>ĕ</b> in
+common words, <i>que</i>, <i>neque</i>, and the like.”</p>
+
+<p>This view, held by the Cambridge Philological Society and by
+Professor Munro, is the one generally accepted; the practice recommended
+by them is the one generally in use, and that which seems safe and
+suitable to follow. That is: Do not altogether pass over the elided
+vowel or syllable in <b>m</b>, except in cases of very close connection,
+in compound words or phrases, or when the final and initial vowel are
+the same, or in the case of <b>ĕ</b> final in common words, as
+<i>que</i>, <i>neque</i>, and the like; but let the final vowel run
+lightly on to the following vowel as in Italian, and touch lightly and
+obscurely the final syllable in&nbsp;<b>m</b>. The <b>o</b> or <b>e</b>
+of <i>proin</i>, <i>proinde</i>, <i>prout</i>, <i>dein</i>,
+<i>deinde</i>, <i>neuter</i>, <i>neutiquam</i>, when not forming a
+distinct syllable, are to be treated as cases of elision between two
+words.</p>
+
+
+<span class = "pagenum">53</span>
+<h4 class = "smallcaps"><a name = "how_quantity" id = "how_quantity">
+Quantity.</a></h4>
+
+<p>In the pronunciation of Latin the observance of quantity and of pitch
+are the two most difficult points of attainment; and they are the
+crucial test of good reading.</p>
+
+<p>The observance of quantity is no less important in prose than in
+verse. A&nbsp;little reflection will convince the dullest mind that the
+Romans did not pronounce a word one way in prose and another in verse;
+that we have not in poetry and prose two languages. Cicero and
+Quintilian both enjoin a due admixture of long and short syllables in
+prose as well as verse; and any one who takes delight in reading Latin
+will heartily agree with Professor Munro when he says: “For myself, by
+observing quantity, I&nbsp;seem to feel more keenly the beauty of
+Cicero’s style and Livy’s, as well as Virgil’s and Horace’s.”</p>
+
+<p>Therefore until one feels at home with the quantities, let him
+observe the rule of beating time in reading, to make sure that the long
+syllables get twice the time of the short ones. In this way he will soon
+have the pronunciation of each word correctly fixed in mind, and will
+not be obliged to think of his quantities in verse more than in prose.
+A&nbsp;long step has been taken in the enjoyment of Latin poetry when
+the reader does not have to be thinking of the ‘feet.’</p>
+
+<p>Young students particularly should be especially careful in the final
+syllable of the verse. Since, so far as the measure is concerned, there
+is no difference there between the long and the short syllable, the
+reader is apt to be careless as to the length of the syllable itself,
+and to make all final syllables long, even to the mispronouncing of the
+word, thereby both making a false quantity and otherwise injuring the
+effect of the verse, by importing into it a monotony foreign to the
+original. Does not Cicero himself say that
+<span class = "pagenum">54</span>
+a short syllable at the end of the verse is as if you ‘stood’ (came to a
+stand), but a long one as if you ‘sat down’?</p>
+
+<p>It is, in fact, in the pronouncing of final syllables everywhere that
+the most serious and persistent faults are found, <i>būs</i> for
+<i>bŭs</i> being one of the worst and most common cases. How much of the
+teacher’s time might be spared, for better things, if he did not have to
+correct <i>būs</i> into <i>bŭs!</i></p>
+
+<p>The disposition to neglect the double and doubled consonants is
+another serious fault, as well as the slovenly pronunciation of two
+consonants, where the reader fails to give the time necessary to speak
+each distinctly, making false quantity and mispronunciation at the same
+time.</p>
+
+<p>In general, if two symbols are written we are to infer that two
+sounds were intended. The only exception to this is in the case of a few
+words where the spelling varies, as <i>casso</i> or <i>caso</i>. In such
+cases we may suppose that the doubled consonant was only designed to
+indicate length.</p>
+
+<p>Another, apparent, exception is in the case of a mute followed by a
+liquid; but the mute and liquid are regularly sounded as one, and
+therefore do not affect the length of the preceding vowel. Sometimes,
+however, for the sake of time, the verse requires them to be pronounced
+separately. In this case each is to be given distinctly; the mute and
+liquid must not coalesce. For it must not be forgotten that, as a rule,
+the vowel before a mute followed by a liquid is short, in which case it
+must on no account be lengthened. Thus, ordinarily, we say
+<i>pă-tris</i>, but the verse may require <i>pat-ris</i>.</p>
+
+<p>Although the vowel before two consonants is generally short, we find,
+in some instances, a&nbsp;long vowel in this position. For example, it
+would appear that the vowel of the supine and cognate parts of the verb
+is long if the vowel of the present indicative, though short, is
+followed by a medial (<b>b</b>, <b>g</b>, <b>d</b>, <b>z</b>), as
+<i>āctus</i>, <i>lēctus</i>, from <i>ăgo</i>, <i>lĕgo</i>.</p>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">55</span>
+<p>Let it be remembered in the matter of <i>i</i> consonant between two
+vowels, that we have really the force of two <b>ii</b>’s, as originally
+written, one, vowel, making a diphthong with the preceding, the other,
+consonant, introducing the new syllable; and that the same is true of
+the compounds of <i>jacio</i>, which should be written with a single
+<b>i</b> but pronounced as with two, as <i>obicit</i>
+(<i>objicit</i>).</p>
+
+
+<h4 class = "smallcaps"><a name = "how_accent" id = "how_accent">
+Accent.</a></h4>
+
+<p>The question of accent presents little difficulty as to place, but
+some as to quality, and much as to kind.</p>
+
+<p>As to quality, it must be remembered that while the acute accent is
+found on syllables either short or long (by&nbsp;nature or position),
+and on either the penult or the antepenult, the circumflex is found only
+on long vowels, and (in&nbsp;words of more than one syllable) only on
+the penult, and then only in case the ultima is short. Thus,
+<i>spês</i>, but <i>dúx</i>; <i>lûnă</i>, but <i>lúnā</i>;
+<i>legâtus</i>, but <i>legáti</i>. In these examples the length of the
+syllable is the same and of course remains the same in inflection, but
+the quality of the accent changes. In the one case the voice is both
+raised and depressed on the same syllable, in the other it is only
+raised. As Professor Ellis puts it: “If the last syllable but one is
+long, it is spoken with a raised pitch, which is maintained throughout
+if its vowel is short, as: <i>véntōs</i>, or if the last syllable is
+long, as: <i>fāmāe</i>; but sinks immediately if its own vowel is long,
+and at the same time the vowel of the last syllable is short, as
+<i>fâmă</i>, to be distinguished from <i>fā́mā</i>.”</p>
+
+<p>But when we come to the question of the <i>kind</i> of accent, we
+come upon the most serious matter practically in the pronunciation of
+Latin, and this because of a difficulty peculiar to the English speaking
+peoples. The English accent is one of <i>stress</i>, whereas the Roman
+is one of <i>pitch</i>.</p>
+
+<span class = "pagenum">56</span>
+<p>No one will disagree with Professor Ellis when he “assumes,” in his
+Quantitative Pronunciation of Latin, “that the Augustan Romans had
+<i>no</i> force accent, that is, that they did not, as we do,
+distinguish one syllable in every word <i>invariably</i> by pronouncing
+it with greater force, that is, with greater loudness, than the others,
+but that the force varied according to the feeling of the moment, or the
+beat of the timekeeper in singing, and was used for purposes of
+expression; just as with us, musical pitch is free, that is, just as we
+may pronounce the same word with different musical pitches for its
+different syllables, and in fact are obliged to vary the musical pitch
+in interrogations and replies. The fixity of musical pitch and freedom
+of degrees of force in Latin, and the freedom of musical pitch and
+fixity of degrees of force in English sharply distinguish the two
+pronunciations even irrespective of quantity.”</p>
+
+<p>But this pitch accent, while alien to us, is not impossible of
+acquisition, and it is essential to any adequate rendering of any Latin
+writer, whether of prose or verse. Nor will the attainment be a work of
+indefinite time if one pursues with constancy some such course as the
+following, recommended by Professor Ellis:</p>
+
+<p>“The place of raised pitch,” he says, “must be strictly observed, and
+for this purpose the verses had better be first read in a kind of
+sing-song, the high pitched syllables being all of one pitch and the low
+pitched syllables being all of one pitch also, but about a musical
+‘fifth’ lower than the other, as if the latter were sung to the lowest
+note of the fourth string of a violin, and the former were sung to the
+lowest note of its third string.”</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p>In the foregoing pages an effort has been made to bring together
+compactly and to set forth concisely the nature of
+<span class = "pagenum">57</span>
+the ‘Roman method’ of pronouncing Latin; the reasons for adopting, and
+the simplest means of acquiring it. No attempt has been made at a
+philosophical or exhaustive treatment of the subject; but at the same
+time it is hoped that nothing unphilosophical has crept in, or anything
+been omitted, which might have been given, to render the subject
+intelligible and enable the intelligent reader to understand the points
+and be able to give a reason for each usage herein recommended.</p>
+
+<p>The main object in view in preparing this little book has been to
+help the teachers of Latin in the secondary schools, to furnish them
+something not too voluminous, yet as satisfactory as the nature of the
+case allows, upon a subject which the present diversity of opinion and
+practice has rendered unnecessarily obscure.</p>
+
+<p>To these teachers, then, a word from Professor Ellis may be fitly
+spoken in conclusion:</p>
+
+<p>“To teach a person to read prose <i>well</i>, even in his own
+language, is difficult, partly because he has seldom heard prose well
+read, though he is constantly hearing prose around him, intonated, but
+unrhythmical. In the case of a dead language, like the Latin, which the
+pupil never hears spoken, and seldom hears read, except by himself or
+his equally ignorant and hobbling fellow-scholars, this difficulty is
+inordinately increased. Let me once more impress on every teacher of
+Latin the <i>duty</i> of himself learning to read Latin readily
+according to accent and quantity; the <i>duty</i> of his reading out to
+his pupils, of his setting them a <i>pattern</i>, of his hearing that
+they follow it, of his correcting their mistakes, of his <i>leading</i>
+them into right habits. If the quantitative pronunciation be adopted, no
+one will be fit to become a classical teacher who cannot read a simple
+Latin sentence decently, with a strict observance of that
+<span class = "pagenum">58</span>
+quantity by which alone the greatest of Latin orators regulated his own
+rhythms.”</p>
+
+<p>“All pronunciation is acquired by imitation, and it is not till after
+hearing a sound many times that we are able to grasp it sufficiently
+well to imitate. It is a mistake constantly made by teachers of language
+to suppose that a pupil knows by once hearing unfamiliar sounds, or even
+unfamiliar combinations of familiar sounds. When pupils are made to
+imitate too soon, they acquire an erroneous pronunciation, which they
+afterward hear constantly from themselves actually or mentally, and
+believe that they hear from the teacher during the small fraction of a
+second that each sound lasts, and hence the habits of these organs
+become fixed.”</p>
+
+<p>The following direction is of the utmost importance (Curwen’s
+“Standard Course,” p.&nbsp;3): “The teacher never sings (speaks)
+<i>with</i> his pupils, but sings (utters, reads, dictates) to them a
+brief and soft <i>pattern</i>. The first art of the pupil is to
+<i>listen well</i> to the pattern, and then to imitate it exactly. He
+that listens best sings (speaks) best.”</p>
+</div>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<pre>
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Roman Pronunciation of Latin, by 
+Frances E. Lord
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ROMAN PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN ***
+
+***** This file should be named 7528-h.htm or 7528-h.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        https://www.gutenberg.org/7/5/2/7528/
+
+Produced by Louise Hope, David Starner, Ted Garvin and
+the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
+https://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from scanned
+images of public domain material from the Google Print
+project.)
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+https://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+https://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at https://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit https://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
+donations.  To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     https://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+
+</pre>
+
+</body>
+</html>
diff --git a/7528-h/images/decline.png b/7528-h/images/decline.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fd674ce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/7528-h/images/decline.png
diff --git a/7528-h/images/decline2.png b/7528-h/images/decline2.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..13b2001
--- /dev/null
+++ b/7528-h/images/decline2.png
diff --git a/7528-h/images/publogo.png b/7528-h/images/publogo.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0aa0cc3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/7528-h/images/publogo.png
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3f55937
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #7528 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7528)
diff --git a/old/7rlat10.txt b/old/7rlat10.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..975d61e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/7rlat10.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,2570 @@
+Project Gutenberg's The Roman Pronunciation of Latin, by Frances E. Lord
+
+Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the
+copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing
+this or any other Project Gutenberg eBook.
+
+This header should be the first thing seen when viewing this Project
+Gutenberg file.  Please do not remove it.  Do not change or edit the
+header without written permission.
+
+Please read the "legal small print," and other information about the
+eBook and Project Gutenberg at the bottom of this file.  Included is
+important information about your specific rights and restrictions in
+how the file may be used.  You can also find out about how to make a
+donation to Project Gutenberg, and how to get involved.
+
+
+**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**
+
+**eBooks Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**
+
+*****These eBooks Were Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!*****
+
+
+Title: The Roman Pronunciation of Latin
+
+Author: Frances E. Lord
+
+Release Date: February, 2005 [EBook #7528]
+[Yes, we are more than one year ahead of schedule]
+[This file was first posted on May 14, 2003]
+[Most recently updated on May 24, 2007]
+
+Edition: 10
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-Latin-1
+
+*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ROMAN PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by David Starner, Ted Garvin
+and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.
+
+
+
+
+THE ROMAN PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN WHY WE USE IT AND HOW TO USE IT BY
+FRANCES E. LORD PROFESSOR OF LATIN IN WELLESLEY COLLEGE BOSTON, U.S.A.
+
+INTRODUCTION
+
+The argument brought against the 'Roman pronunciation' of Latin is
+twofold: the impossibility of perfect theoretical knowledge, and the
+difficulty of practical attainment.
+
+If to know the main features of the classic pronunciation of Latin were
+impossible, then our obvious course would be to refuse the attempt; to
+regard the language as in reality dead, and to make no pretence of
+reading it. This is in fact what the English scholars generally do. But
+if we may know substantially the sounds of the tongue in which Cicero
+spoke and Horace sung, shall we give up the delights of the melody and
+the rhythm and content ourselves with the thought form? Poetry
+especially does not exist apart from sound; sense alone will not
+constitute it, nor even sense and form without sound.
+
+But if it is true that the task of practical acquisition is, if not
+impossible, extremely difficult, 'the work of a lifetime,' as the
+objectors say, do the results justify the expenditure of time and labor?
+
+The position of the English-speaking peoples is not the same in this as
+that of Europeans. Europeans have not the same necessity to urge them to
+the 'Roman pronunciation.' Their own languages represent the Latin more
+or less adequately, in vowel sounds, in accent, and even, to some
+extent, in quantity; so that with them, all is not lost if they
+translate the sounds into their own tongues; while with us, nothing is
+left--sound, accent, quantity, all is gone; none of these is reproduced,
+or even suggested, in English.
+
+We believe a great part of our difficulty, in this country, lies in the
+fact that so few of those who study and teach Latin really know what the
+'Roman pronunciation' is, or how to use it. Inquiries are constantly
+being made by teachers, Why is this so? What authority is there for
+this? What reason for that?
+
+In the hope of giving help to those who desire to know the Why and the
+How this little compendium is made; in the interest of
+time-and-labor-saving uniformity, and in the belief that what cannot be
+fully known or perfectly acquired does still not prevent our perceiving,
+and showing in some worthy manner and to some satisfactory degree, how,
+as well as what, the honey-tongued orators and divine poets of Rome
+spoke or sung.
+
+In the following pages free use has been made of the highest English
+authorities, of Oxford and Cambridge. Quotations will be found from
+Prof. H. A. J. Munro's pamphlet on "Pronunciation of Latin," and from
+Prof. A. J. Ellis' book on "Quantitative Pronunciation of Latin"; also
+from the pamphlet issued by the Cambridge (Eng.) Philological Society,
+on the "Pronunciation of Latin in the Augustan Period."
+
+In the present compendium the chief points of divergence from the
+general American understanding of the 'Roman' method are in respect of
+the diphthong AE and the consonantal U. In these cases the pronunciation
+herein recommended for the AE is that favored by Roby, Munro, and Ellis,
+and adopted by the Cambridge Philological Society; for the V, or U
+consonant, that advocated by Corssen, A. J. Ellis, and Robinson Ellis.
+
+PART I.
+
+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 ou:
+
+[Id. ib. vi. 10.] U litteram quotiens enuntiamus, productis et
+coeuntibus labris efferemus... quam nisi per ou 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 (i with macron to show length)
+litteram.' Ipse sonus sic debet sonare, quomodo sonat I (i without
+macron to show short) 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 (with 	macron) 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 [Greek: transliterated]*_mystai_
+_piei_, and _mystae_: _Paeligni_ is reproduced in Strabo by
+[Greek: transliterated]_Pelignoi_: Cicero, Virgil, Festus, and Servius
+all alike give _caestos_ for [Greek: transliterated]_kestos_: 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 E*: _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 ([Greek: transliteration]_skaenae_ is always _scaena_): and
+it is from this form _plaenus_ that in Italian, contrary to the usual
+law of long Latin E, we have _pieno_ 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, [Greek: transliteration]_ae_ 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 Oe. 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: _oro ode_: I would pronounce thus in Latin: _plostrum_,
+_Clodius_, _corus_. Perhaps, too, the fact that _gloria_, _vittoria_ and
+the common termination--_orio_, have in Italian the open O, might show
+that the corresponding *O 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
+quem 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. io.] Nam K quidem in nullis verbis utendum puto, nisi
+quae significat, etiam ut sola ponatur. Hoc eo non omisi, quod quidam
+earn 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 tarn in metre 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 _Grams_, 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 _hoc_, _hac_, _sic_, _hic_ 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. 32.] 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. 427.] 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:
+
+[Prise. 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 illa 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 [Greek: transliterated] _g_ 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 antiques 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
+ilia 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_, _vehement_, _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 aena."
+
+Additam supra vidimus H litteram, et _ahera_ 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 _Iulhis_ 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, Romanes 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. 11.] 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_, _suggestion_, 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 instituto? _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 abverbs 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 [Greek transliteration: aes]); _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 canon.)
+
+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:
+
+[Prisc. 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 A* 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 [Greek
+letter: digamma], nostri _vau_ vocant, et alii 	_digamma_; ea per se
+scripta non facit syllabam, anteposita autem 	vocali facit, ut [Greek in
+which w = digamma:* wamaxa, 	wekaebolos] et [Greek, w = digamma:*
+welenae]. 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 	[Greek
+transliteration: bau] 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 [Greek
+letter: digamma] _digamma_, id est _vau_, ab 	ipsius voce profectum
+teste Varrone et Didymo, qui id ei nomen 	esse ostendunt. Pro quo Caesar
+hanc [Greek letter: digamma 	rotated 90 degress] figuram scribi voluit,
+quod quamvis illi 	recte visum est tamen consuetude antiqua superavit.
+Adeo autem 	hoc verum est quod pro Aeolico _digamma_ [Greek letter:
+digamma] 	U ponitur.
+
+What then was the sound of this Aeolic _digamma_ or [Greek
+transliteration: bau]? Priscian says:
+
+[Keil. v. II. p. 11.] [Greek letter: digamma] 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 [Greek letter: 	ph] [Greek letter: p] et
+[Greek letter: eta]; unde nunc quoque in Graecis nominibus antiquam
+scripturam servamus, pro [Greek: ph] P et H ponentes, ut _Orpheus_,
+_Phaethon_ Postea 	vero in Latinis verbis placuit pro P et H, F scribi,
+ut _fama_, 	_filiu_, _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_ ([Greek letter: digamma]) in sound.
+
+Now the office of the Greek _digamma_ was apparently manifold. It stood
+for [Greek letter: s, b] (Eng. V), [Greek letter: g, ch, ph], 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 [Greek letter: b]
+(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 earn (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
+[Greek letter: digamma] _digamma_ quotiens ab [Greek: r] 	incipit dictio
+quae solet aspirari, ut [Greek transliteration: 	raetor], [Greek
+transliteration: braetor] dicunt, quod _digamma_ 	nisi vocali praeponi
+et in principio syllabae non potest. Ideo 	autem locum transmutavit,
+quia B vel _digamma_ post [Greek 	letter: r] 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 _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 saltern 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 	aliac 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 siluae;"
+
+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 wind with mind, 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
+_oeuf_; _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 [Greek transliteration: ouai]).
+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: U<circumflex>A
+U<circumflex>E U<circumflex>I U<circumflex>O, 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
+*[Greek letter: b] for U consonant in inscriptions and in writers of
+the first century. For instance, _Nerva_ and _Severus_ in contemporary
+inscriptions are written both with *[Greek: ou] and with [Greek letter:
+b]: [Greek transliteration: Neroua, Nerba; Seouaeros, Sebaeros]. And in
+Plutarch we find numerous instances of [Greek letter: b] taking the
+place of [Greek transliteration: ou].
+
+It is true that the instances in which we find [Greek letter: b] taking
+the place of [Greek trasnliteration: ou] in the first century, and
+earlier, are decidedly in the minority, but when we recollect that
+[Greek trasnliteration: ou] 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 [Greek letter: b] 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
+[Greek letter: b] (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. v. 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 [Greek: x], 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 maybe 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 terminal 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 	antecedats, 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 _pone_ et _ergo_, quod apud Latinos in 	ultima syllaba
+nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: 	ex hoc est quod
+diximus _pone_ et _ergo_. Ideo _pone_ dicimus ne 	putetur verbum esse
+imperativi modi, hoc est _pone_; _ergo_ ideo 	dicimus ne putetur
+conjunctio rationalis, quod est _ergo_.
+
+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 _pax_, _fax_, _pix_, _nix_, _dux_, 	_nux_, quae etiam
+tali accentu pronuntianda est, quamvis sit 	longa positione, quia
+naturaliter brevis est. Quae vero 	naturaliter producta est circumflexo
+accentu exprimenda est ut, 	_res_, _dos_, _spes_. Dissyllabae vero quae
+priorem productam 	habent et posteriorem correptam, priorem syllabam
+circumflectunt, 	ut _meta_, _Creta_. Illae vero quae sunt ambae longae
+vel prior 	brevis et ulterior longa acuto accento pronuntiandae sunt, ut
+_nepos_, _leges_, _reges_. 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
+_Tullius_, _Hostilius_. Nam paenultima, si positione longa fuerit,
+acuetur, antepaenultima vero gravabitur, ut _Catullus_, _Metellus_. Si
+vero ex muta et liquida longa in versu esse 	constat, in oratione quoque
+accentum mutat, ut _latebrae_, 	_tenebrae_. Syllaba vero ultima, si
+brevis sit et paenultimam 	naturaliter longam habuerit ipsam paenultimam
+circumflectit, ut 	_Cethegus_, _perosus_. Ultima quoque, si naturaliter
+longa 	fuerit, paenultimam acuet, ut _Athenae_, _Mycenae_. 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 donee 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 _ante_ and _ante_; or between the
+same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as _reges_ and _reges_; and
+in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as _finit_ (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 _perfect_ or _perfect_). 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. in 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 _quiesco_ or _qui'esco_, _actito_ or _actito_:
+
+[Aul. Cell. 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, nee a 	_quiete_ dictum, sed ab eo
+_quietem_; Graecaeque vocis [Greek: 	eschon kai eskon], lonice a verbo
+[Greek: escho ischo] 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_.
+
+PART II.
+
+HOW TO USE IT.
+
+The directions now to be given may be fittingly introduced by a few
+paragraphs from Professor Munro's pamphlet on the pronunciation of
+Latin, already more than once quoted from. He says--and part of this has
+been cited before:
+
+"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. With the same amount of evidence,
+direct and indirect, we have for Latin, it would not, I think, be worth
+anybody's while to try to recover the pronunciation of French or
+English; it might, I think, be worth his while to try to recover that of
+German or Italian, in which sound and spelling accord more nearly, and
+accent obeys more determinable laws."
+
+"I am convinced," he says in another place, "that the mainstay of an
+efficient reform is the adoption essentially of the Italian vowel
+system: it combines beauty, firmness and precision in a degree not
+equalled by any other system of which I have any knowledge. The little
+ragged boys in the streets of Rome and Florence enunciate their vowels
+in a style of which princes might be proud."
+
+And again:
+
+"I do not propose that every one should learn Italian in order to learn
+Latin. What I would suggest is, that those who know Italian should make
+use of their knowledge and should in many points take Italian sounds for
+the model to be followed; that those who do not know it should try to
+learn from others the sounds required, or such an approxi-mation to them
+as may be possible in each case."
+
+We may then sum up the results at which we have arrived in the following
+directions:
+
+First of all pay particular attention to the vowel sounds, to make them
+full and distinct, taking the Italian model, if you know Italian, and
+always observing strictly the quantity.
+
+Pronounce
+
+[long a] as in Italian _fato_ or as final a in aha!
+
+a as in Italian _fatto_; or as initial a in aha! or as in fast (not as
+in fat).
+
+[long e] as second e in Italian _fedele_; or as in fete (not fate); or
+as in vein.
+
+e as in Italian _fetta_; or as in very.
+
+[long i] as first i in Italian _timide_; or as in caprice,
+
+i as second i in Italian _timide_; or as in capricious.
+
+i or u, where the spelling varies between the two (e.g. _maximus_,
+_maxumus_), as in German Mueller.
+
+[long o] as first o in Italian _orlo_; or as in more.
+
+o as first o in Italian _rotto_; or as in wholly (not as in holly).
+
+[long u] as in Italian _rumore_; or as in rural.
+
+u as in Italian _ruppe_; or as in puss (not as in fuss).
+
+Let i in vi before d, t, m, r or x, in the first syllable of a word, be
+pronounced quite obscurely, somewhat as first i in virgin.
+
+In the matter of diphthongs, be sure to take always the correct
+spelling, to begin with, and thus avoid what Munro justly terms "hateful
+barbarisms like _coelum_, _coena_, _moestus_." Much time is wasted by
+students and bad habits are acquired in not finding, at the outset, the
+right spelling of each word and holding to it. This each student must do
+for himself, consulting a good dictionary, as editors and editions are
+not always to be depended on. Here it is the diphthongs that present the
+chief difficulty and call for the greatest care.
+
+In pronouncing diphthongs sound both vowels, but glide so rapidly from
+the first to the second as to offer to the ear but a single sound. In
+the publication of the Cambridge (Eng.) Philological Society on
+"Pronunciation of Latin in the Augustan Period," the following
+directions are given:
+
+"The pronunciation of these diphthongs, of which the last three are
+extremely rare, is best learnt by first sounding each vowel separately
+and then running them together, AE as ah-eh, AU as ah-oo, OE as o-eh, EI
+as eh-ee, EU as eh-oo, and UI as oo-ee."
+
+Thus:
+
+AE (ah-eh) as in German _naeher_; or as EA in pear; or AY in aye (ever);
+(not like a* in fate nor like AI in aisle).
+
+AI (ah-ee) as in aye (yes).
+
+AU (ah-oo) as in German _Haus_, with more of the U sound than OU in
+house.
+
+EI (eh-ee) nearly as in veil. (In _dein_, _deinde_, the EI is not 	a
+diphthong, but the E, when not forming a distinct syllable, is 	elided.)
+
+EU (eh-oo) as in Italian _Europa_. (In _neuter_ and _neutiquam_ 	elide
+the E.)
+
+OE (o-eh) nearly like German oe in _Goethe_.
+
+OI is not found in the classical period. (In _proin_, _proinde_, 	the O
+is either elided or forms a distinct syllable. OU in 	_prout_ is not a
+diphthong; the U is either elided or forms a 	distinct syllable.)
+
+UI (oo-ee) as in cuirass.
+
+In the pronunciation of consonants certain points claim special
+attention. And first among these is the sounding of the doubled
+consonants. Whoever has heard Italian spoken recognizes one of its
+greatest beauties to be the distinctness, yet smoothness, with which its
+ll and rr and cc--in short, all its doubled consonants--are pronounced.
+No feature of the language is more charming. And one who attempts the
+same in Latin and perseveres, with whatever difficulty and pains, will
+be amply rewarded in the music of the language.
+
+A good working rule for pronouncing doubled consonants is to hold the
+first until ready to pronounce the second: as in the words _we'll lie
+till late_, not to be pronounced as _we lie till eight_.
+
+Next in importance, and, in New England at least, first in difficulty,
+is the trilling of the r. There can be no approximation to a
+satisfactory pronunciation of Latin until this r is acquired; but the
+satisfaction in the result when accomplished is well worth all the pains
+taken.
+
+Another point to be observed is that the dentals t, d, n, l, require
+that the tongue touch the teeth, rather than the palate. Munro says: "d
+and t we treat with our usual slovenliness, and force them up to the
+roof of our mouth: we should make them real dentals, as no doubt the
+Romans made them, and then we shall see how readily _ad at_, _apud
+aput_, _illud illut_ and the like interchange." This requires care, but
+amply repays the effort.
+
+It is necessary also to remember that n before a guttural is pronounced
+as in the same position in English, e.g., in _ancora_ as in anchor; in
+_anxius_ as in anxious; in _relinquo_ as in relinquish.
+
+Remember to make n before f or s a mere nasal, having as little
+prominence otherwise as possible, and to carefully lengthen the
+preceding vowel.
+
+Studiously observe the length of the vowel before the terminations
+_gnus_, _gna_, _gnum_.
+
+Remember that the final syllable in m, when not elided, is to be
+pronounced as lightly and rapidly as possible, the more lightly and
+indistinctly the better.
+
+Remember that s must not be pronounced as z, except where it represents
+z in Greek words, as Smyrna (Zmyrna), Smaragdus (Zmaragdus), otherwise
+always pronounce as in sis.
+
+Remember in pronouncing v to direct the lower lip toward the upper lip,
+avoiding the upper teeth.
+
+In general, in pronouncing the consonants conform to the following
+scheme:
+
+b as in blab.
+
+b before s or t, sharpened to p, as _urbs_==_urps_; _obtinuit_==
+_optinuit_.
+
+c as sceptic (never as in sceptre).
+
+ch as in chemist (never as in cheer or chivalry).
+
+d as in did, but made more dental than in English.
+
+d final, before a word beginning with a consonant, in particles
+especially, often sharpened to t as in tid-bit (tit-bit).
+
+f as in fief, but with more breath than in English.
+
+g as in gig (never as in gin).
+
+gn in terminations _gnus_, _gna_, _gnum_, makes preceding vowel 	long.
+
+h as in hah!
+
+i (consonant) as in onion.
+
+k as in kink.
+
+l initial and final, as in lull.
+
+l medial, as in lullaby, always more dental than in English.
+
+m initial and medial, as in membrane.
+
+m before q, nasalized.
+
+m final, when not elided, touched lightly and obscurely, somewhat as in
+tandem (tandm); or as in the Englishman's pronunciation of Blenheim
+(Blenhm), Birmingham (Birminghm).
+
+n initial and final, as in nine.
+
+n medial, as in damnable, always more dental than in English.
+
+n before c, g, q, x, as in concord, anger, sinker, relinquish, anxious,
+the tongue not touching the roof of the mouth.
+
+n before f or s, nasal, lengthening the preceding vowel, as in
+_renaissance_.
+
+p as in pup.
+
+q as in quick.
+
+r as in roar, but trilled, as in Italian or French. (This is most
+important.)
+
+s as in sis (never as in his).
+
+t as in tot, but more dental than in English (never as in 	motion).
+
+th nearly as in then (never as in thin).
+
+v (u consonant) nearly as in verve, but labial, rather than
+labio-dental; like the German w (not like the English w). Make English v
+as nearly as may be done without touch-* the lower lip to the upper
+teeth.
+
+x as in six.
+
+z nearly as dz in adze.
+
+Doubled consonants to be pronounced each distinctly, by holding the
+first until ready to pronounce the second.
+
+As Professor Ellis well puts it: "No relaxation of the organs, no puff
+of wind or grunt of voice should intervene between the two parts of a
+doubled consonant, which should more resemble separated parts of one
+articulation than two separate articulations."
+
+"Duplication of consonants is consequently regarded simply as the
+energetic utterance of a single consonant."
+
+ELISION.
+
+Professor Ellis believes that the m was always omitted in speaking and
+the following consonant pronounced as if doubled (_quorum pars_ as
+_quoruppars_). Final m at the end of a sentence he thinks was not heard
+at all. Where a vowel followed he thinks that the m was not heard, the
+vowel before being slurred on to the initial vowel of the following
+word.
+
+The Cambridge (Eng.) Philological Society, however, takes the view that
+"final vowels (or diphthongs) when followed by vowels (or diphthongs)
+were not cut off, but lightly run on to the following word, as in
+Italian. But if the vowel was the same the effect was that of a single
+sound."
+
+Professor Munro says:
+
+"In respect of elision I would only say that, by comparing Plautus with
+Ovid, we may see how much the elaborate cultivation of the language had
+tended to a more distinct sounding of final syllables; and that but for
+Virgil's powerful influence the elision of long vowels would have almost
+ceased. Clearly we must not altogether pass over the elided vowel or
+syllable in m, except perhaps in the case of e* in common words, _que_,
+_neque_, and the like."
+
+This view, held by the Cambridge Philological Society and by Professor
+Munro, is the one generally accepted; the practice recommended by them
+is the one generally in use, and that which seems safe and suitable to
+follow. That is: Do not altogether pass over the elided vowel or
+syllable in m, except in cases of very close connection, in compound
+words or phrases, or when the final and initial vowel are the same, or
+in the case of e* final in common words, as _que_, _neque_, and the
+like; but let the final vowel run lightly on to the following vowel as
+in Italian, and touch lightly and obscurely the final syllable in m. The
+o or e of _proin_, _proinde_, _prout_, _dein_, _deinde_, _neuter_,
+_neutiquam_, when not forming a distinct syllable, are to be treated as
+cases of elision between two words.
+
+QUANTITY.
+
+In the pronunciation of Latin the observance of quantity and of pitch
+are the two most difficult points of attainment; and they are the
+crucial test of good reading.
+
+The observance of quantity is no less important in prose than in verse.
+A little reflection will convince the dullest mind that the Romans did
+not pronounce a word one way in prose and another in verse, that we have
+not in poetry and prose two languages. Cicero and Quintilian both enjoin
+a due admixture of long and short syllables in prose as well as verse;
+and any one who takes delight in reading Latin will heartily agree with
+Professor Munro when he says: "For myself, by observing quantity, I seem
+to feel more keenly the beauty of Cicero's style and Livy's, as well as
+Virgil's and Horace's."
+
+Therefore until one feels at home with the quantities, let him observe
+the rule of beating time in reading, to make sure that the long
+syllables get twice the time of the short ones. In this way he will soon
+have the pronunciation of each word correctly fixed in mind, and will
+not be obliged to think of his quantities in verse more than in prose. A
+long step has been taken in the enjoyment of Latin poetry when the
+reader does not have to be thinking of the 'feet.'
+
+Young students particularly should be especially careful in the final
+syllable of the verse. Since, so far as the measure is concerned, there
+is no difference there between the long and the short syllable, the
+reader is apt to be careless as to the length of the syllable itself,
+and to make all final syllables long, even to the mispronouncing of the
+word, thereby both making a false quantity and otherwise injuring the
+effect of the verse, by importing into it a monotony foreign to the
+original. Does not Cicero himself say that a short syllable at the end
+of the verse is as if you 'stood' (came to a stand), but a long one as
+if you 'sat down'?
+
+It is, in fact, in the pronouncing of final syllables everywhere that
+the most serious and persistent faults are found, bus for bus being one
+of the worst and most common cases. How much of the teacher's time might
+be spared, for better things, if he did not have to correct bus into
+bus!
+
+The disposition to neglect the double and doubled consonants is another
+serious fault, as well as the slovenly pronunciation of two consonants,
+where the reader fails to give the time necessary to speak each
+distinctly, making false quantity and mispronunciation at the same time.
+
+In general, if two symbols are written we are to infer that two sounds
+were intended. The only exception to this is in the case of a few words
+where the spelling varies, as casso or caso. In such cases we may
+suppose that the doubled consonant was only designed to indicate length.
+
+Another, apparent, exception is in the case of a mute followed by a
+liquid; but the mute and liquid are regularly sounded as one, and
+therefore do not affect the length of the preceding vowel. Sometimes,
+however, for the sake of time, the verse requires them to be pronounced
+separately. In this case each is to be given distinctly; the mute and
+liquid must not coalesce. For it must not be forgotten that, as a rule,
+the vowel before a mute followed by a liquid is short, in which case it
+must on no account be lengthened. Thus, ordinarily, we say pa-tris, but
+the verse may require pat-ris.
+
+Although the vowel before two consonants is generally--short, we find,
+in some instances, a long vowel in this position. For example, it would
+appear that the vowel of the supine and cognate parts of the verb is
+long if the vowel of the present indicative, though short, is followed
+by a medial (b, g, d, z), as actus, lectus, from ago, lego.
+
+Let it be remembered in the matter of i consonant between two vowels,
+that we have really the force of two ii's, as originally written, one,
+vowel, making a diphthong with the preceding, the other, consonant,
+introducing the new syllable; and that the same is true of the compounds
+of _jacio_, which should be written with a single i but pronounced as
+with two, as _obicit (objicit)_.
+
+ACCENT.
+
+The question of accent presents little difficulty as to place, but some
+as to quality, and much as to kind. As to quality, it must be remembered
+that while the acute accent is found on syllables either short or long
+(by nature or position), and on either the penult or the antepenult, the
+circumflex is found only on long vowels, and (in words of more than one
+syllable) only on the penult, and then only in case the ultima is short.
+Thus, _spes_, but _dux_; _luna_, but _lun[long a]_; _legatus_, but
+_legati_. In these examples the length of the syllable is the same and
+of course remains the same in inflection, but the quality of the accent
+changes. In the one case the voice is both raised and depressed on the
+same syllable, in the other it is only raised. As Professor Ellis puts
+it: "If the last syllable but one is long, it is spoken with a raised
+pitch, which is maintained throughout if its vowel is short, as:
+_vent[long o]s_, or if the last syllable is long, as: _f[long a]m[long
+a]e_; but sinks immediately if its own vowel is long, and at the same
+time the vowel of the last syllable is short, as _fama_, to be
+distinguished from _f[long a]m[long a]_."
+
+But when we come to the question of the _kind_ of accent, we come upon
+the most serious matter practically in the pronunciation of Latin, and
+this because of a difficulty peculiar to the English speaking peoples.
+The English accent is one of _stress_, whereas the Roman is one of
+_pitch_.
+
+No one will disagree with Professor Ellis when he "assumes," in his
+Quantitative Pronunciation of Latin, "that the Augustan Romans had _no_
+force accent, that is, that they did not, as we do, distinguish one
+syllable in every word _invariably_ by pronouncing it with greater
+force, that is, with greater loudness, than the others, but that the
+force varied according to the feeling of the moment, or the beat of the
+timekeeper in singing, and was used for purposes of expression; just as
+with us, musical pitch is free, that is, just as we may pronounce the
+same word with different musical pitches for its different syllables,
+and in fact are obliged to vary the musical pitch in interrogations and
+replies. The fixity of musical pitch and freedom of degrees of force in
+Latin, and the freedom of musical pitch and fixity of degrees of force
+in English sharply distinguish the two pronunciations even irrespective
+of quantity."
+
+But this pitch accent, while alien to us, is not impossible of
+acquisition, and it is essential to any adequate rendering of any Latin
+writer, whether of prose or verse. Nor will the attainment be a work of
+indefinite time if one pursues with constancy some such course as the
+following, recommended by Professor Ellis:
+
+"The place of raised pitch," he says, "must be strictly observed, and
+for this purpose the verses had better be first read in a kind of
+sing-song, the high pitched syllables being all of one pitch and the low
+pitched syllables being all of one pitch also, but about a musical
+'fifth' lower than the other, as if the latter were sung to the lowest
+note of the fourth string of a violin, and the former were sung to the
+lowest note of its third string."
+
+In the foregoing pages an effort has been made to bring together
+compactly and to set forth concisely the nature of the 'Roman method' of
+pronouncing Latin; the reasons for adopting, and the simplest means of
+acquiring it. No attempt has been made at a philosophical or exhaustive
+treatment of the subject; but at the same time it is hoped that nothing
+unphilosophical has crept in, or anything been omitted, which might have
+been given, to render the subject intelligible and enable the
+intelligent reader to understand the points and be able to give a reason
+for each usage herein recommended.
+
+The main object in view in preparing this little book has been to help
+the teachers of Latin in the secondary schools, to furnish them
+something not too voluminous, yet as satisfactory as the nature of the
+case allows, upon a subject which the present diversity of opinion and
+practice has rendered unnecessarily obscure.
+
+To these teachers, then, a word from Professor Ellis may be fitly spoken
+in conclusion:
+
+"To teach a person to read prose _well_, even in his own language, is
+difficult, partly because he has seldom heard prose well read, though he
+is constantly hearing prose around him, intonated, but unrhythmical. In
+the case of a dead language, like the Latin, which the pupil never hears
+spoken, and seldom hears read, except by himself or his equally ignorant
+and hobbling fellow-scholars, this difficulty is inordinately increased.
+Let me once more impress on every teacher of Latin the _duty_ of himself
+learning to read Latin readily according to accent and quantity; the
+_duty_ of his reading out to his pupils, of his setting them a
+_pattern_, of his hearing that they follow it, of his correcting their
+mistakes, of his _leading_ them into right habits. If the quantitative
+pronunciation be adopted, no one will be fit to become a classical
+teacher who cannot read a simple Latin sentence decently, with a strict
+observance of that quantity by which alone the greatest of Latin orators
+regulated his own rhythms."
+
+"All pronunciation is acquired by imitation, and it is not till after
+hearing a sound many times that we are able to grasp it sufficiently
+well to imitate. It is a mistake constantly made by teachers of language
+to suppose that a pupil knows by once hearing unfamiliar sounds, or even
+unfamiliar combinations of familiar sounds. When pupils are made to
+imitate too soon, they acquire an erroneous pronunciation, which they
+afterward hear constantly from themselves actually or mentally, and
+believe that they hear from the teacher during the small fraction of a
+second that each sound lasts, and hence the habits of these organs
+become fixed."
+
+The following direction is of the utmost importance (Curwen's "Standard
+Course," p. 3): "The teacher never sings (speaks) _with_ his pupils, but
+sings (utters, reads, dictates) to them a brief and soft _pattern_. The
+first art of the pupil is to _listen well_ to the pattern, and then to
+imitate it exactly. He that listens best sings (speaks) best."
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Roman Pronunciation of Latin
+by Frances E. Lord
+
+*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ROMAN PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN ***
+
+This file should be named 7rlat10.txt or 7rlat10.zip
+Corrected EDITIONS of our eBooks get a new NUMBER, 7rlat11.txt
+VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, 7rlat10a.txt
+
+Produced by David Starner, Ted Garvin
+and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.
+
+Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the US
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we usually do not
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+We are now trying to release all our eBooks one year in advance
+of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing.
+Please be encouraged to tell us about any error or corrections,
+even years after the official publication date.
+
+Please note neither this listing nor its contents are final til
+midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.
+The official release date of all Project Gutenberg eBooks is at
+Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month.  A
+preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment
+and editing by those who wish to do so.
+
+Most people start at our Web sites at:
+http://gutenberg.net or
+http://promo.net/pg
+
+These Web sites include award-winning information about Project
+Gutenberg, including how to donate, how to help produce our new
+eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter (free!).
+
+
+Those of you who want to download any eBook before announcement
+can get to them as follows, and just download by date.  This is
+also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the
+indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an
+announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter.
+
+http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext03 or
+ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext03
+
+Or /etext02, 01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90
+
+Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want,
+as it appears in our Newsletters.
+
+
+Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)
+
+We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work.  The
+time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours
+to get any eBook selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright
+searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc.   Our
+projected audience is one hundred million readers.  If the value
+per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2
+million dollars per hour in 2002 as we release over 100 new text
+files per month:  1240 more eBooks in 2001 for a total of 4000+
+We are already on our way to trying for 2000 more eBooks in 2002
+If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total
+will reach over half a trillion eBooks given away by year's end.
+
+The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away 1 Trillion eBooks!
+This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
+which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users.
+
+Here is the briefest record of our progress (* means estimated):
+
+eBooks Year Month
+
+    1  1971 July
+   10  1991 January
+  100  1994 January
+ 1000  1997 August
+ 1500  1998 October
+ 2000  1999 December
+ 2500  2000 December
+ 3000  2001 November
+ 4000  2001 October/November
+ 6000  2002 December*
+ 9000  2003 November*
+10000  2004 January*
+
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been created
+to secure a future for Project Gutenberg into the next millennium.
+
+We need your donations more than ever!
+
+As of February, 2002, contributions are being solicited from people
+and organizations in: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut,
+Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
+Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
+Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
+Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
+Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
+Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
+Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
+
+We have filed in all 50 states now, but these are the only ones
+that have responded.
+
+As the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list
+will be made and fund raising will begin in the additional states.
+Please feel free to ask to check the status of your state.
+
+In answer to various questions we have received on this:
+
+We are constantly working on finishing the paperwork to legally
+request donations in all 50 states.  If your state is not listed and
+you would like to know if we have added it since the list you have,
+just ask.
+
+While we cannot solicit donations from people in states where we are
+not yet registered, we know of no prohibition against accepting
+donations from donors in these states who approach us with an offer to
+donate.
+
+International donations are accepted, but we don't know ANYTHING about
+how to make them tax-deductible, or even if they CAN be made
+deductible, and don't have the staff to handle it even if there are
+ways.
+
+Donations by check or money order may be sent to:
+
+Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+PMB 113
+1739 University Ave.
+Oxford, MS 38655-4109
+
+Contact us if you want to arrange for a wire transfer or payment
+method other than by check or money order.
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been approved by
+the US Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN
+[Employee Identification Number] 64-622154.  Donations are
+tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law.  As fund-raising
+requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be
+made and fund-raising will begin in the additional states.
+
+We need your donations more than ever!
+
+You can get up to date donation information online at:
+
+http://www.gutenberg.net/donation.html
+
+
+***
+
+If you can't reach Project Gutenberg,
+you can always email directly to:
+
+Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com>
+
+Prof. Hart will answer or forward your message.
+
+We would prefer to send you information by email.
+
+
+**The Legal Small Print**
+
+
+(Three Pages)
+
+***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS**START***
+Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers.
+They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
+your copy of this eBook, even if you got it for free from
+someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our
+fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement
+disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how
+you may distribute copies of this eBook if you want to.
+
+*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS EBOOK
+By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
+eBook, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept
+this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive
+a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this eBook by
+sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person
+you got it from. If you received this eBook on a physical
+medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.
+
+ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM EBOOKS
+This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBooks,
+is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart
+through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project").
+Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright
+on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
+distribute it in the United States without permission and
+without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth
+below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this eBook
+under the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.
+
+Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market
+any commercial products without permission.
+
+To create these eBooks, the Project expends considerable
+efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain
+works. Despite these efforts, the Project's eBooks and any
+medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other
+things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
+intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged
+disk or other eBook medium, a computer virus, or computer
+codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
+
+LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
+But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below,
+[1] Michael Hart and the Foundation (and any other party you may
+receive this eBook from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook) disclaims
+all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including
+legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR
+UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
+INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
+OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE
+POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
+
+If you discover a Defect in this eBook within 90 days of
+receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
+you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
+time to the person you received it from. If you received it
+on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
+such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
+copy. If you received it electronically, such person may
+choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
+receive it electronically.
+
+THIS EBOOK IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS
+TO THE EBOOK OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT
+LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
+PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or
+the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the
+above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you
+may have other legal rights.
+
+INDEMNITY
+You will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation,
+and its trustees and agents, and any volunteers associated
+with the production and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
+texts harmless, from all liability, cost and expense, including
+legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
+following that you do or cause:  [1] distribution of this eBook,
+[2] alteration, modification, or addition to the eBook,
+or [3] any Defect.
+
+DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
+You may distribute copies of this eBook electronically, or by
+disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this
+"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,
+or:
+
+[1]  Only give exact copies of it.  Among other things, this
+     requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
+     eBook or this "small print!" statement.  You may however,
+     if you wish, distribute this eBook in machine readable
+     binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
+     including any form resulting from conversion by word
+     processing or hypertext software, but only so long as
+     *EITHER*:
+
+     [*]  The eBook, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
+          does *not* contain characters other than those
+          intended by the author of the work, although tilde
+          (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
+          be used to convey punctuation intended by the
+          author, and additional characters may be used to
+          indicate hypertext links; OR
+
+     [*]  The eBook may be readily converted by the reader at
+          no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
+          form by the program that displays the eBook (as is
+          the case, for instance, with most word processors);
+          OR
+
+     [*]  You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
+          no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
+          eBook in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
+          or other equivalent proprietary form).
+
+[2]  Honor the eBook refund and replacement provisions of this
+     "Small Print!" statement.
+
+[3]  Pay a trademark license fee to the Foundation of 20% of the
+     gross profits you derive calculated using the method you
+     already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  If you
+     don't derive profits, no royalty is due.  Royalties are
+     payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation"
+     the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were
+     legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent
+     periodic) tax return.  Please contact us beforehand to
+     let us know your plans and to work out the details.
+
+WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?
+Project Gutenberg is dedicated to increasing the number of
+public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
+in machine readable form.
+
+The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time,
+public domain materials, or royalty free copyright licenses.
+Money should be paid to the:
+"Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or
+software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at:
+hart@pobox.com
+
+[Portions of this eBook's header and trailer may be reprinted only
+when distributed free of all fees.  Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 by
+Michael S. Hart.  Project Gutenberg is a TradeMark and may not be
+used in any sales of Project Gutenberg eBooks or other materials be
+they hardware or software or any other related product without
+express permission.]
+
+*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS*Ver.02/11/02*END*
diff --git a/old/7rlat10.zip b/old/7rlat10.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9f4496d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/7rlat10.zip
diff --git a/old/8rlat10.txt b/old/8rlat10.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..269104c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/8rlat10.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,2569 @@
+Project Gutenberg's The Roman Pronunciation of Latin, by Frances E. Lord
+
+Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the
+copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing
+this or any other Project Gutenberg eBook.
+
+This header should be the first thing seen when viewing this Project
+Gutenberg file.  Please do not remove it.  Do not change or edit the
+header without written permission.
+
+Please read the "legal small print," and other information about the
+eBook and Project Gutenberg at the bottom of this file.  Included is
+important information about your specific rights and restrictions in
+how the file may be used.  You can also find out about how to make a
+donation to Project Gutenberg, and how to get involved.
+
+
+**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**
+
+**eBooks Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**
+
+*****These eBooks Were Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!*****
+
+
+Title: The Roman Pronunciation of Latin
+
+Author: Frances E. Lord
+
+Release Date: February, 2005 [EBook #7528]
+[Yes, we are more than one year ahead of schedule]
+[This file was first posted on May 14, 2003]
+[Most recently updated on May 24, 2007]
+
+Edition: 10
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-Latin-1
+
+*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ROMAN PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN ***
+
+
+
+Produced by David Starner, Ted Garvin
+and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.
+
+
+
+
+THE ROMAN PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN WHY WE USE IT AND HOW TO USE IT BY
+FRANCES E. LORD PROFESSOR OF LATIN IN WELLESLEY COLLEGE BOSTON, U.S.A.
+
+INTRODUCTION
+
+The argument brought against the 'Roman pronunciation' of Latin is
+twofold: the impossibility of perfect theoretical knowledge, and the
+difficulty of practical attainment.
+
+If to know the main features of the classic pronunciation of Latin were
+impossible, then our obvious course would be to refuse the attempt; to
+regard the language as in reality dead, and to make no pretence of
+reading it. This is in fact what the English scholars generally do. But
+if we may know substantially the sounds of the tongue in which Cicero
+spoke and Horace sung, shall we give up the delights of the melody and
+the rhythm and content ourselves with the thought form? Poetry
+especially does not exist apart from sound; sense alone will not
+constitute it, nor even sense and form without sound.
+
+But if it is true that the task of practical acquisition is, if not
+impossible, extremely difficult, 'the work of a lifetime,' as the
+objectors say, do the results justify the expenditure of time and labor?
+
+The position of the English-speaking peoples is not the same in this as
+that of Europeans. Europeans have not the same necessity to urge them to
+the 'Roman pronunciation.' Their own languages represent the Latin more
+or less adequately, in vowel sounds, in accent, and even, to some
+extent, in quantity; so that with them, all is not lost if they
+translate the sounds into their own tongues; while with us, nothing is
+left--sound, accent, quantity, all is gone; none of these is reproduced,
+or even suggested, in English.
+
+We believe a great part of our difficulty, in this country, lies in the
+fact that so few of those who study and teach Latin really know what the
+'Roman pronunciation' is, or how to use it. Inquiries are constantly
+being made by teachers, Why is this so? What authority is there for
+this? What reason for that?
+
+In the hope of giving help to those who desire to know the Why and the
+How this little compendium is made; in the interest of
+time-and-labor-saving uniformity, and in the belief that what cannot be
+fully known or perfectly acquired does still not prevent our perceiving,
+and showing in some worthy manner and to some satisfactory degree, how,
+as well as what, the honey-tongued orators and divine poets of Rome
+spoke or sung.
+
+In the following pages free use has been made of the highest English
+authorities, of Oxford and Cambridge. Quotations will be found from
+Prof. H. A. J. Munro's pamphlet on "Pronunciation of Latin," and from
+Prof. A. J. Ellis' book on "Quantitative Pronunciation of Latin"; also
+from the pamphlet issued by the Cambridge (Eng.) Philological Society,
+on the "Pronunciation of Latin in the Augustan Period."
+
+In the present compendium the chief points of divergence from the
+general American understanding of the 'Roman' method are in respect of
+the diphthong AE and the consonantal U. In these cases the pronunciation
+herein recommended for the AE is that favored by Roby, Munro, and Ellis,
+and adopted by the Cambridge Philological Society; for the V, or U
+consonant, that advocated by Corssen, A. J. Ellis, and Robinson Ellis.
+
+PART I.
+
+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 ou:
+
+[Id. ib. vi. 10.] U litteram quotiens enuntiamus, productis et
+coeuntibus labris efferemus... quam nisi per ou 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 (i with macron to show length)
+litteram.' Ipse sonus sic debet sonare, quomodo sonat I (i without
+macron to show short) 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 (with 	macron) 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 [Greek: transliterated]*_mystai_
+_piei_, and _mystae_: _Paeligni_ is reproduced in Strabo by
+[Greek: transliterated]_Pelignoi_: Cicero, Virgil, Festus, and Servius
+all alike give _caestos_ for [Greek: transliterated]_kestos_: 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 E*: _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 ([Greek: transliteration]_skaenae_ is always _scaena_): and
+it is from this form _plaenus_ that in Italian, contrary to the usual
+law of long Latin E, we have _pi�no_ 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, [Greek: transliteration]_ae_ 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 �. 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: _�ro �de_: I would pronounce thus in Latin: _pl�strum_,
+_Cl�dius_, _c�rus_. Perhaps, too, the fact that _gloria_, _vittoria_ and
+the common termination--_orio_, have in Italian the open O, might show
+that the corresponding *� 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
+quem 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. io.] Nam K quidem in nullis verbis utendum puto, nisi
+quae significat, etiam ut sola ponatur. Hoc eo non omisi, quod quidam
+earn 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 tarn in metre 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 _Grams_, 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 _h�c_, _h�c_, _s�c_, _h�c_ 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. 32.] 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. 427.] 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:
+
+[Prise. 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 illa 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 [Greek: transliterated] _g_ 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 antiques 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
+ilia 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_, _vehement_, _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 a�na."
+
+Additam supra vidimus H litteram, et _ahera_ 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 _Iulhis_ 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, Romanes 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. 11.] 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_, _suggestion_, 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 instituto? _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 abverbs 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 [Greek transliteration: aes]); _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 ca�on.)
+
+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:
+
+[Prisc. 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 A* 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 [Greek
+letter: digamma], nostri _vau_ vocant, et alii 	_digamma_; ea per se
+scripta non facit syllabam, anteposita autem 	vocali facit, ut [Greek in
+which w = digamma:* wamaxa, 	wekaebolos] et [Greek, w = digamma:*
+welenae]. 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 	[Greek
+transliteration: bau] 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 [Greek
+letter: digamma] _digamma_, id est _vau_, ab 	ipsius voce profectum
+teste Varrone et Didymo, qui id ei nomen 	esse ostendunt. Pro quo Caesar
+hanc [Greek letter: digamma 	rotated 90 degress] figuram scribi voluit,
+quod quamvis illi 	recte visum est tamen consuetude antiqua superavit.
+Adeo autem 	hoc verum est quod pro Aeolico _digamma_ [Greek letter:
+digamma] 	U ponitur.
+
+What then was the sound of this Aeolic _digamma_ or [Greek
+transliteration: bau]? Priscian says:
+
+[Keil. v. II. p. 11.] [Greek letter: digamma] 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 [Greek letter: 	ph] [Greek letter: p] et
+[Greek letter: eta]; unde nunc quoque in Graecis nominibus antiquam
+scripturam servamus, pro [Greek: ph] P et H ponentes, ut _Orpheus_,
+_Phaethon_ Postea 	vero in Latinis verbis placuit pro P et H, F scribi,
+ut _fama_, 	_filiu_, _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_ ([Greek letter: digamma]) in sound.
+
+Now the office of the Greek _digamma_ was apparently manifold. It stood
+for [Greek letter: s, b] (Eng. V), [Greek letter: g, ch, ph], 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 [Greek letter: b]
+(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 earn (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
+[Greek letter: digamma] _digamma_ quotiens ab [Greek: r] 	incipit dictio
+quae solet aspirari, ut [Greek transliteration: 	raetor], [Greek
+transliteration: braetor] dicunt, quod _digamma_ 	nisi vocali praeponi
+et in principio syllabae non potest. Ideo 	autem locum transmutavit,
+quia B vel _digamma_ post [Greek 	letter: r] 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 _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 saltern 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 	aliac 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 siluae;"
+
+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 wind with mind, 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
+_oeuf_; _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 [Greek transliteration: ouai]).
+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: U<circumflex>A
+U<circumflex>E U<circumflex>I U<circumflex>O, 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
+*[Greek letter: b] for U consonant in inscriptions and in writers of
+the first century. For instance, _Nerva_ and _Severus_ in contemporary
+inscriptions are written both with *[Greek: ou] and with [Greek letter:
+b]: [Greek transliteration: Neroua, Nerba; Seouaeros, Sebaeros]. And in
+Plutarch we find numerous instances of [Greek letter: b] taking the
+place of [Greek transliteration: ou].
+
+It is true that the instances in which we find [Greek letter: b] taking
+the place of [Greek trasnliteration: ou] in the first century, and
+earlier, are decidedly in the minority, but when we recollect that
+[Greek trasnliteration: ou] 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 [Greek letter: b] 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
+[Greek letter: b] (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. v. 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 [Greek: x], 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 maybe 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 terminal 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 	antecedats, 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 _pon�_ et _ergo_, quod apud Latinos in 	ultima syllaba
+nisi discretionis causa accentus poni non potest: 	ex hoc est quod
+diximus _pon�_ et _erg�_. Ideo _pon�_ dicimus ne 	putetur verbum esse
+imperativi modi, hoc est _pone_; _erg�_ ideo 	dicimus ne putetur
+conjunctio rationalis, quod est _�rgo_.
+
+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 _p�x_, _f�x_, _p�x_, _n�x_, _d�x_, 	_n�x_, quae etiam
+tali accentu pronuntianda est, quamvis sit 	longa positione, quia
+naturaliter brevis est. Quae vero 	naturaliter producta est circumflexo
+accentu exprimenda est ut, 	_r�s_, _d�s_, _sp�s_. Dissyllabae vero quae
+priorem productam 	habent et posteriorem correptam, priorem syllabam
+circumflectunt, 	ut _m�ta_, _Cr�ta_. Illae vero quae sunt ambae longae
+vel prior 	brevis et ulterior longa acuto accento pronuntiandae sunt, ut
+_n�pos_, _l�ges_, _r�ges_. 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
+_T�llius_, _Host�lius_. Nam paenultima, si positione longa fuerit,
+acuetur, antepaenultima vero gravabitur, ut _Cat�llus_, _Met�llus_. Si
+vero ex muta et liquida longa in versu esse 	constat, in oratione quoque
+accentum mutat, ut _lat�brae_, 	_ten�brae_. Syllaba vero ultima, si
+brevis sit et paenultimam 	naturaliter longam habuerit ipsam paenultimam
+circumflectit, ut 	_Ceth�gus_, _per�sus_. Ultima quoque, si naturaliter
+longa 	fuerit, paenultimam acuet, ut _Ath�nae_, _Myc�nae_. 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 donee 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 _�nte_ and _ant�_; or between the
+same form as occurring in nouns and verbs, as _r�ges_ and _reg�s_; and
+in final syllables contracted or curtailed, as _finit_ (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 _p�rfect_ or _perf�ct_). 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. in 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 _qui�sco_ or _qui'esco_, _�ctito_ or _actito_:
+
+[Aul. Cell. 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, nee a 	_quiete_ dictum, sed ab eo
+_quietem_; Graecaeque vocis [Greek: 	eschon kai eskon], lonice a verbo
+[Greek: escho ischo] 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_.
+
+PART II.
+
+HOW TO USE IT.
+
+The directions now to be given may be fittingly introduced by a few
+paragraphs from Professor Munro's pamphlet on the pronunciation of
+Latin, already more than once quoted from. He says--and part of this has
+been cited before:
+
+"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. With the same amount of evidence,
+direct and indirect, we have for Latin, it would not, I think, be worth
+anybody's while to try to recover the pronunciation of French or
+English; it might, I think, be worth his while to try to recover that of
+German or Italian, in which sound and spelling accord more nearly, and
+accent obeys more determinable laws."
+
+"I am convinced," he says in another place, "that the mainstay of an
+efficient reform is the adoption essentially of the Italian vowel
+system: it combines beauty, firmness and precision in a degree not
+equalled by any other system of which I have any knowledge. The little
+ragged boys in the streets of Rome and Florence enunciate their vowels
+in a style of which princes might be proud."
+
+And again:
+
+"I do not propose that every one should learn Italian in order to learn
+Latin. What I would suggest is, that those who know Italian should make
+use of their knowledge and should in many points take Italian sounds for
+the model to be followed; that those who do not know it should try to
+learn from others the sounds required, or such an approxi-mation to them
+as may be possible in each case."
+
+We may then sum up the results at which we have arrived in the following
+directions:
+
+First of all pay particular attention to the vowel sounds, to make them
+full and distinct, taking the Italian model, if you know Italian, and
+always observing strictly the quantity.
+
+Pronounce
+
+[long a] as in Italian _fato_ or as final a in aha!
+
+a as in Italian _fatto_; or as initial a in aha! or as in fast (not as
+in fat).
+
+[long e] as second e in Italian _fedele_; or as in f�te (not fate); or
+as in vein.
+
+e as in Italian _fetta_; or as in very.
+
+[long i] as first i in Italian _timide_; or as in caprice,
+
+i as second i in Italian _timide_; or as in capricious.
+
+i or u, where the spelling varies between the two (e.g. _maximus_,
+_maxumus_), as in German M�ller.
+
+[long o] as first o in Italian _orlo_; or as in more.
+
+o as first o in Italian _rotto_; or as in wholly (not as in holly).
+
+[long u] as in Italian _rumore_; or as in rural.
+
+u as in Italian _ruppe_; or as in puss (not as in fuss).
+
+Let i in vi before d, t, m, r or x, in the first syllable of a word, be
+pronounced quite obscurely, somewhat as first i in virgin.
+
+In the matter of diphthongs, be sure to take always the correct
+spelling, to begin with, and thus avoid what Munro justly terms "hateful
+barbarisms like _coelum_, _coena_, _moestus_." Much time is wasted by
+students and bad habits are acquired in not finding, at the outset, the
+right spelling of each word and holding to it. This each student must do
+for himself, consulting a good dictionary, as editors and editions are
+not always to be depended on. Here it is the diphthongs that present the
+chief difficulty and call for the greatest care.
+
+In pronouncing diphthongs sound both vowels, but glide so rapidly from
+the first to the second as to offer to the ear but a single sound. In
+the publication of the Cambridge (Eng.) Philological Society on
+"Pronunciation of Latin in the Augustan Period," the following
+directions are given:
+
+"The pronunciation of these diphthongs, of which the last three are
+extremely rare, is best learnt by first sounding each vowel separately
+and then running them together, AE as ah-eh, AU as ah-oo, OE as o-eh, EI
+as eh-ee, EU as eh-oo, and UI as oo-ee."
+
+Thus:
+
+AE (ah-�h) as in German _n�her_; or as EA in pear; or AY in aye (ever);
+(not like a* in fate nor like AI in aisle).
+
+AI (ah-�e) as in aye (yes).
+
+AU (ah-�o) as in German _Haus_, with more of the U sound than OU in
+house.
+
+EI (eh-�e) nearly as in veil. (In _dein_, _deinde_, the EI is not 	a
+diphthong, but the E, when not forming a distinct syllable, is 	elided.)
+
+EU (eh-�o) as in Italian _Europa_. (In _neuter_ and _neutiquam_ 	elide
+the E.)
+
+OE (o-�h) nearly like German � in _Goethe_.
+
+OI is not found in the classical period. (In _proin_, _proinde_, 	the O
+is either elided or forms a distinct syllable. OU in 	_prout_ is not a
+diphthong; the U is either elided or forms a 	distinct syllable.)
+
+UI (oo-�e) as in cuirass.
+
+In the pronunciation of consonants certain points claim special
+attention. And first among these is the sounding of the doubled
+consonants. Whoever has heard Italian spoken recognizes one of its
+greatest beauties to be the distinctness, yet smoothness, with which its
+ll and rr and cc--in short, all its doubled consonants--are pronounced.
+No feature of the language is more charming. And one who attempts the
+same in Latin and perseveres, with whatever difficulty and pains, will
+be amply rewarded in the music of the language.
+
+A good working rule for pronouncing doubled consonants is to hold the
+first until ready to pronounce the second: as in the words _we'll lie
+till late_, not to be pronounced as _we lie till eight_.
+
+Next in importance, and, in New England at least, first in difficulty,
+is the trilling of the r. There can be no approximation to a
+satisfactory pronunciation of Latin until this r is acquired; but the
+satisfaction in the result when accomplished is well worth all the pains
+taken.
+
+Another point to be observed is that the dentals t, d, n, l, require
+that the tongue touch the teeth, rather than the palate. Munro says: "d
+and t we treat with our usual slovenliness, and force them up to the
+roof of our mouth: we should make them real dentals, as no doubt the
+Romans made them, and then we shall see how readily _ad at_, _apud
+aput_, _illud illut_ and the like interchange." This requires care, but
+amply repays the effort.
+
+It is necessary also to remember that n before a guttural is pronounced
+as in the same position in English, e.g., in _ancora_ as in anchor; in
+_anxius_ as in anxious; in _relinquo_ as in relinquish.
+
+Remember to make n before f or s a mere nasal, having as little
+prominence otherwise as possible, and to carefully lengthen the
+preceding vowel.
+
+Studiously observe the length of the vowel before the terminations
+_gnus_, _gna_, _gnum_.
+
+Remember that the final syllable in m, when not elided, is to be
+pronounced as lightly and rapidly as possible, the more lightly and
+indistinctly the better.
+
+Remember that s must not be pronounced as z, except where it represents
+z in Greek words, as Smyrna (Zmyrna), Smaragdus (Zmaragdus), otherwise
+always pronounce as in sis.
+
+Remember in pronouncing v to direct the lower lip toward the upper lip,
+avoiding the upper teeth.
+
+In general, in pronouncing the consonants conform to the following
+scheme:
+
+b as in blab.
+
+b before s or t, sharpened to p, as _urbs_==_urps_; _obtinuit_==
+_optinuit_.
+
+c as sceptic (never as in sceptre).
+
+ch as in chemist (never as in cheer or chivalry).
+
+d as in did, but made more dental than in English.
+
+d final, before a word beginning with a consonant, in particles
+especially, often sharpened to t as in tid-bit (tit-bit).
+
+f as in fief, but with more breath than in English.
+
+g as in gig (never as in gin).
+
+gn in terminations _gnus_, _gna_, _gnum_, makes preceding vowel 	long.
+
+h as in hah!
+
+i (consonant) as in onion.
+
+k as in kink.
+
+l initial and final, as in lull.
+
+l medial, as in lullaby, always more dental than in English.
+
+m initial and medial, as in membrane.
+
+m before q, nasalized.
+
+m final, when not elided, touched lightly and obscurely, somewhat as in
+tandem (tandm); or as in the Englishman's pronunciation of Blenheim
+(Blenhm), Birmingham (Birminghm).
+
+n initial and final, as in nine.
+
+n medial, as in damnable, always more dental than in English.
+
+n before c, g, q, x, as in concord, anger, sinker, relinquish, anxious,
+the tongue not touching the roof of the mouth.
+
+n before f or s, nasal, lengthening the preceding vowel, as in
+_renaissance_.
+
+p as in pup.
+
+q as in quick.
+
+r as in roar, but trilled, as in Italian or French. (This is most
+important.)
+
+s as in sis (never as in his).
+
+t as in tot, but more dental than in English (never as in 	motion).
+
+th nearly as in then (never as in thin).
+
+v (u consonant) nearly as in verve, but labial, rather than
+labio-dental; like the German w (not like the English w). Make English v
+as nearly as may be done without touch-* the lower lip to the upper
+teeth.
+
+x as in six.
+
+z nearly as dz in adze.
+
+Doubled consonants to be pronounced each distinctly, by holding the
+first until ready to pronounce the second.
+
+As Professor Ellis well puts it: "No relaxation of the organs, no puff
+of wind or grunt of voice should intervene between the two parts of a
+doubled consonant, which should more resemble separated parts of one
+articulation than two separate articulations."
+
+"Duplication of consonants is consequently regarded simply as the
+energetic utterance of a single consonant."
+
+ELISION.
+
+Professor Ellis believes that the m was always omitted in speaking and
+the following consonant pronounced as if doubled (_quorum pars_ as
+_quoruppars_). Final m at the end of a sentence he thinks was not heard
+at all. Where a vowel followed he thinks that the m was not heard, the
+vowel before being slurred on to the initial vowel of the following
+word.
+
+The Cambridge (Eng.) Philological Society, however, takes the view that
+"final vowels (or diphthongs) when followed by vowels (or diphthongs)
+were not cut off, but lightly run on to the following word, as in
+Italian. But if the vowel was the same the effect was that of a single
+sound."
+
+Professor Munro says:
+
+"In respect of elision I would only say that, by comparing Plautus with
+Ovid, we may see how much the elaborate cultivation of the language had
+tended to a more distinct sounding of final syllables; and that but for
+Virgil's powerful influence the elision of long vowels would have almost
+ceased. Clearly we must not altogether pass over the elided vowel or
+syllable in m, except perhaps in the case of e* in common words, _que_,
+_neque_, and the like."
+
+This view, held by the Cambridge Philological Society and by Professor
+Munro, is the one generally accepted; the practice recommended by them
+is the one generally in use, and that which seems safe and suitable to
+follow. That is: Do not altogether pass over the elided vowel or
+syllable in m, except in cases of very close connection, in compound
+words or phrases, or when the final and initial vowel are the same, or
+in the case of e* final in common words, as _que_, _neque_, and the
+like; but let the final vowel run lightly on to the following vowel as
+in Italian, and touch lightly and obscurely the final syllable in m. The
+o or e of _proin_, _proinde_, _prout_, _dein_, _deinde_, _neuter_,
+_neutiquam_, when not forming a distinct syllable, are to be treated as
+cases of elision between two words.
+
+QUANTITY.
+
+In the pronunciation of Latin the observance of quantity and of pitch
+are the two most difficult points of attainment; and they are the
+crucial test of good reading.
+
+The observance of quantity is no less important in prose than in verse.
+A little reflection will convince the dullest mind that the Romans did
+not pronounce a word one way in prose and another in verse, that we have
+not in poetry and prose two languages. Cicero and Quintilian both enjoin
+a due admixture of long and short syllables in prose as well as verse;
+and any one who takes delight in reading Latin will heartily agree with
+Professor Munro when he says: "For myself, by observing quantity, I seem
+to feel more keenly the beauty of Cicero's style and Livy's, as well as
+Virgil's and Horace's."
+
+Therefore until one feels at home with the quantities, let him observe
+the rule of beating time in reading, to make sure that the long
+syllables get twice the time of the short ones. In this way he will soon
+have the pronunciation of each word correctly fixed in mind, and will
+not be obliged to think of his quantities in verse more than in prose. A
+long step has been taken in the enjoyment of Latin poetry when the
+reader does not have to be thinking of the 'feet.'
+
+Young students particularly should be especially careful in the final
+syllable of the verse. Since, so far as the measure is concerned, there
+is no difference there between the long and the short syllable, the
+reader is apt to be careless as to the length of the syllable itself,
+and to make all final syllables long, even to the mispronouncing of the
+word, thereby both making a false quantity and otherwise injuring the
+effect of the verse, by importing into it a monotony foreign to the
+original. Does not Cicero himself say that a short syllable at the end
+of the verse is as if you 'stood' (came to a stand), but a long one as
+if you 'sat down'?
+
+It is, in fact, in the pronouncing of final syllables everywhere that
+the most serious and persistent faults are found, bus for bus being one
+of the worst and most common cases. How much of the teacher's time might
+be spared, for better things, if he did not have to correct bus into
+bus!
+
+The disposition to neglect the double and doubled consonants is another
+serious fault, as well as the slovenly pronunciation of two consonants,
+where the reader fails to give the time necessary to speak each
+distinctly, making false quantity and mispronunciation at the same time.
+
+In general, if two symbols are written we are to infer that two sounds
+were intended. The only exception to this is in the case of a few words
+where the spelling varies, as casso or caso. In such cases we may
+suppose that the doubled consonant was only designed to indicate length.
+
+Another, apparent, exception is in the case of a mute followed by a
+liquid; but the mute and liquid are regularly sounded as one, and
+therefore do not affect the length of the preceding vowel. Sometimes,
+however, for the sake of time, the verse requires them to be pronounced
+separately. In this case each is to be given distinctly; the mute and
+liquid must not coalesce. For it must not be forgotten that, as a rule,
+the vowel before a mute followed by a liquid is short, in which case it
+must on no account be lengthened. Thus, ordinarily, we say pa-tris, but
+the verse may require pat-ris.
+
+Although the vowel before two consonants is generally--short, we find,
+in some instances, a long vowel in this position. For example, it would
+appear that the vowel of the supine and cognate parts of the verb is
+long if the vowel of the present indicative, though short, is followed
+by a medial (b, g, d, z), as actus, lectus, from ago, lego.
+
+Let it be remembered in the matter of i consonant between two vowels,
+that we have really the force of two ii's, as originally written, one,
+vowel, making a diphthong with the preceding, the other, consonant,
+introducing the new syllable; and that the same is true of the compounds
+of _jacio_, which should be written with a single i but pronounced as
+with two, as _obicit (objicit)_.
+
+ACCENT.
+
+The question of accent presents little difficulty as to place, but some
+as to quality, and much as to kind. As to quality, it must be remembered
+that while the acute accent is found on syllables either short or long
+(by nature or position), and on either the penult or the antepenult, the
+circumflex is found only on long vowels, and (in words of more than one
+syllable) only on the penult, and then only in case the ultima is short.
+Thus, _sp�s_, but _d�x_; _l�na_, but _l�n[long a]_; _leg�tus_, but
+_leg�ti_. In these examples the length of the syllable is the same and
+of course remains the same in inflection, but the quality of the accent
+changes. In the one case the voice is both raised and depressed on the
+same syllable, in the other it is only raised. As Professor Ellis puts
+it: "If the last syllable but one is long, it is spoken with a raised
+pitch, which is maintained throughout if its vowel is short, as:
+_v�nt[long o]s_, or if the last syllable is long, as: _f[long a]m[long
+a]e_; but sinks immediately if its own vowel is long, and at the same
+time the vowel of the last syllable is short, as _f�ma_, to be
+distinguished from _f[long a]m[long a]_."
+
+But when we come to the question of the _kind_ of accent, we come upon
+the most serious matter practically in the pronunciation of Latin, and
+this because of a difficulty peculiar to the English speaking peoples.
+The English accent is one of _stress_, whereas the Roman is one of
+_pitch_.
+
+No one will disagree with Professor Ellis when he "assumes," in his
+Quantitative Pronunciation of Latin, "that the Augustan Romans had _no_
+force accent, that is, that they did not, as we do, distinguish one
+syllable in every word _invariably_ by pronouncing it with greater
+force, that is, with greater loudness, than the others, but that the
+force varied according to the feeling of the moment, or the beat of the
+timekeeper in singing, and was used for purposes of expression; just as
+with us, musical pitch is free, that is, just as we may pronounce the
+same word with different musical pitches for its different syllables,
+and in fact are obliged to vary the musical pitch in interrogations and
+replies. The fixity of musical pitch and freedom of degrees of force in
+Latin, and the freedom of musical pitch and fixity of degrees of force
+in English sharply distinguish the two pronunciations even irrespective
+of quantity."
+
+But this pitch accent, while alien to us, is not impossible of
+acquisition, and it is essential to any adequate rendering of any Latin
+writer, whether of prose or verse. Nor will the attainment be a work of
+indefinite time if one pursues with constancy some such course as the
+following, recommended by Professor Ellis:
+
+"The place of raised pitch," he says, "must be strictly observed, and
+for this purpose the verses had better be first read in a kind of
+sing-song, the high pitched syllables being all of one pitch and the low
+pitched syllables being all of one pitch also, but about a musical
+'fifth' lower than the other, as if the latter were sung to the lowest
+note of the fourth string of a violin, and the former were sung to the
+lowest note of its third string."
+
+In the foregoing pages an effort has been made to bring together
+compactly and to set forth concisely the nature of the 'Roman method' of
+pronouncing Latin; the reasons for adopting, and the simplest means of
+acquiring it. No attempt has been made at a philosophical or exhaustive
+treatment of the subject; but at the same time it is hoped that nothing
+unphilosophical has crept in, or anything been omitted, which might have
+been given, to render the subject intelligible and enable the
+intelligent reader to understand the points and be able to give a reason
+for each usage herein recommended.
+
+The main object in view in preparing this little book has been to help
+the teachers of Latin in the secondary schools, to furnish them
+something not too voluminous, yet as satisfactory as the nature of the
+case allows, upon a subject which the present diversity of opinion and
+practice has rendered unnecessarily obscure.
+
+To these teachers, then, a word from Professor Ellis may be fitly spoken
+in conclusion:
+
+"To teach a person to read prose _well_, even in his own language, is
+difficult, partly because he has seldom heard prose well read, though he
+is constantly hearing prose around him, intonated, but unrhythmical. In
+the case of a dead language, like the Latin, which the pupil never hears
+spoken, and seldom hears read, except by himself or his equally ignorant
+and hobbling fellow-scholars, this difficulty is inordinately increased.
+Let me once more impress on every teacher of Latin the _duty_ of himself
+learning to read Latin readily according to accent and quantity; the
+_duty_ of his reading out to his pupils, of his setting them a
+_pattern_, of his hearing that they follow it, of his correcting their
+mistakes, of his _leading_ them into right habits. If the quantitative
+pronunciation be adopted, no one will be fit to become a classical
+teacher who cannot read a simple Latin sentence decently, with a strict
+observance of that quantity by which alone the greatest of Latin orators
+regulated his own rhythms."
+
+"All pronunciation is acquired by imitation, and it is not till after
+hearing a sound many times that we are able to grasp it sufficiently
+well to imitate. It is a mistake constantly made by teachers of language
+to suppose that a pupil knows by once hearing unfamiliar sounds, or even
+unfamiliar combinations of familiar sounds. When pupils are made to
+imitate too soon, they acquire an erroneous pronunciation, which they
+afterward hear constantly from themselves actually or mentally, and
+believe that they hear from the teacher during the small fraction of a
+second that each sound lasts, and hence the habits of these organs
+become fixed."
+
+The following direction is of the utmost importance (Curwen's "Standard
+Course," p. 3): "The teacher never sings (speaks) _with_ his pupils, but
+sings (utters, reads, dictates) to them a brief and soft _pattern_. The
+first art of the pupil is to _listen well_ to the pattern, and then to
+imitate it exactly. He that listens best sings (speaks) best."
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Roman Pronunciation of Latin
+by Frances E. Lord
+
+*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ROMAN PRONUNCIATION OF LATIN ***
+
+This file should be named 8rlat10.txt or 8rlat10.zip
+Corrected EDITIONS of our eBooks get a new NUMBER, 8rlat11.txt
+VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, 8rlat10a.txt
+
+Produced by David Starner, Ted Garvin
+and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.
+
+Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the US
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we usually do not
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+We are now trying to release all our eBooks one year in advance
+of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing.
+Please be encouraged to tell us about any error or corrections,
+even years after the official publication date.
+
+Please note neither this listing nor its contents are final til
+midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.
+The official release date of all Project Gutenberg eBooks is at
+Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month.  A
+preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment
+and editing by those who wish to do so.
+
+Most people start at our Web sites at:
+http://gutenberg.net or
+http://promo.net/pg
+
+These Web sites include award-winning information about Project
+Gutenberg, including how to donate, how to help produce our new
+eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter (free!).
+
+
+Those of you who want to download any eBook before announcement
+can get to them as follows, and just download by date.  This is
+also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the
+indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an
+announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter.
+
+http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext03 or
+ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext03
+
+Or /etext02, 01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90
+
+Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want,
+as it appears in our Newsletters.
+
+
+Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)
+
+We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work.  The
+time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours
+to get any eBook selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright
+searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc.   Our
+projected audience is one hundred million readers.  If the value
+per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2
+million dollars per hour in 2002 as we release over 100 new text
+files per month:  1240 more eBooks in 2001 for a total of 4000+
+We are already on our way to trying for 2000 more eBooks in 2002
+If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total
+will reach over half a trillion eBooks given away by year's end.
+
+The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away 1 Trillion eBooks!
+This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
+which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users.
+
+Here is the briefest record of our progress (* means estimated):
+
+eBooks Year Month
+
+    1  1971 July
+   10  1991 January
+  100  1994 January
+ 1000  1997 August
+ 1500  1998 October
+ 2000  1999 December
+ 2500  2000 December
+ 3000  2001 November
+ 4000  2001 October/November
+ 6000  2002 December*
+ 9000  2003 November*
+10000  2004 January*
+
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been created
+to secure a future for Project Gutenberg into the next millennium.
+
+We need your donations more than ever!
+
+As of February, 2002, contributions are being solicited from people
+and organizations in: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut,
+Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
+Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
+Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
+Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
+Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
+Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
+Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
+
+We have filed in all 50 states now, but these are the only ones
+that have responded.
+
+As the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list
+will be made and fund raising will begin in the additional states.
+Please feel free to ask to check the status of your state.
+
+In answer to various questions we have received on this:
+
+We are constantly working on finishing the paperwork to legally
+request donations in all 50 states.  If your state is not listed and
+you would like to know if we have added it since the list you have,
+just ask.
+
+While we cannot solicit donations from people in states where we are
+not yet registered, we know of no prohibition against accepting
+donations from donors in these states who approach us with an offer to
+donate.
+
+International donations are accepted, but we don't know ANYTHING about
+how to make them tax-deductible, or even if they CAN be made
+deductible, and don't have the staff to handle it even if there are
+ways.
+
+Donations by check or money order may be sent to:
+
+Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+PMB 113
+1739 University Ave.
+Oxford, MS 38655-4109
+
+Contact us if you want to arrange for a wire transfer or payment
+method other than by check or money order.
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been approved by
+the US Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN
+[Employee Identification Number] 64-622154.  Donations are
+tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law.  As fund-raising
+requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be
+made and fund-raising will begin in the additional states.
+
+We need your donations more than ever!
+
+You can get up to date donation information online at:
+
+http://www.gutenberg.net/donation.html
+
+
+***
+
+If you can't reach Project Gutenberg,
+you can always email directly to:
+
+Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com>
+
+Prof. Hart will answer or forward your message.
+
+We would prefer to send you information by email.
+
+
+**The Legal Small Print**
+
+
+(Three Pages)
+
+***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS**START***
+Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers.
+They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
+your copy of this eBook, even if you got it for free from
+someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our
+fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement
+disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how
+you may distribute copies of this eBook if you want to.
+
+*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS EBOOK
+By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
+eBook, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept
+this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive
+a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this eBook by
+sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person
+you got it from. If you received this eBook on a physical
+medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.
+
+ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM EBOOKS
+This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBooks,
+is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart
+through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project").
+Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright
+on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
+distribute it in the United States without permission and
+without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth
+below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this eBook
+under the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.
+
+Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market
+any commercial products without permission.
+
+To create these eBooks, the Project expends considerable
+efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain
+works. Despite these efforts, the Project's eBooks and any
+medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other
+things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
+intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged
+disk or other eBook medium, a computer virus, or computer
+codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
+
+LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
+But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below,
+[1] Michael Hart and the Foundation (and any other party you may
+receive this eBook from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook) disclaims
+all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including
+legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR
+UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
+INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
+OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE
+POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
+
+If you discover a Defect in this eBook within 90 days of
+receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
+you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
+time to the person you received it from. If you received it
+on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
+such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
+copy. If you received it electronically, such person may
+choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
+receive it electronically.
+
+THIS EBOOK IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS
+TO THE EBOOK OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT
+LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
+PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or
+the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the
+above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you
+may have other legal rights.
+
+INDEMNITY
+You will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation,
+and its trustees and agents, and any volunteers associated
+with the production and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
+texts harmless, from all liability, cost and expense, including
+legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
+following that you do or cause:  [1] distribution of this eBook,
+[2] alteration, modification, or addition to the eBook,
+or [3] any Defect.
+
+DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
+You may distribute copies of this eBook electronically, or by
+disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this
+"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,
+or:
+
+[1]  Only give exact copies of it.  Among other things, this
+     requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
+     eBook or this "small print!" statement.  You may however,
+     if you wish, distribute this eBook in machine readable
+     binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
+     including any form resulting from conversion by word
+     processing or hypertext software, but only so long as
+     *EITHER*:
+
+     [*]  The eBook, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
+          does *not* contain characters other than those
+          intended by the author of the work, although tilde
+          (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
+          be used to convey punctuation intended by the
+          author, and additional characters may be used to
+          indicate hypertext links; OR
+
+     [*]  The eBook may be readily converted by the reader at
+          no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
+          form by the program that displays the eBook (as is
+          the case, for instance, with most word processors);
+          OR
+
+     [*]  You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
+          no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
+          eBook in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
+          or other equivalent proprietary form).
+
+[2]  Honor the eBook refund and replacement provisions of this
+     "Small Print!" statement.
+
+[3]  Pay a trademark license fee to the Foundation of 20% of the
+     gross profits you derive calculated using the method you
+     already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  If you
+     don't derive profits, no royalty is due.  Royalties are
+     payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation"
+     the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were
+     legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent
+     periodic) tax return.  Please contact us beforehand to
+     let us know your plans and to work out the details.
+
+WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?
+Project Gutenberg is dedicated to increasing the number of
+public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
+in machine readable form.
+
+The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time,
+public domain materials, or royalty free copyright licenses.
+Money should be paid to the:
+"Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or
+software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at:
+hart@pobox.com
+
+[Portions of this eBook's header and trailer may be reprinted only
+when distributed free of all fees.  Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 by
+Michael S. Hart.  Project Gutenberg is a TradeMark and may not be
+used in any sales of Project Gutenberg eBooks or other materials be
+they hardware or software or any other related product without
+express permission.]
+
+*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS*Ver.02/11/02*END*
diff --git a/old/8rlat10.zip b/old/8rlat10.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d2c00a7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/8rlat10.zip