diff options
Diffstat (limited to '7528-8.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 7528-8.txt | 2782 |
1 files changed, 2782 insertions, 0 deletions
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 â ê î ô û. The circumflex in its own right appears +in a few short passages dealing with accent, always contrasted with +acute á é; 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 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 #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 (#skênê# 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, + #ê# 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 +ô+ 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 _hôc_, _hâc_, _sîc_, _hîc_ 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 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 #ês#); _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 +[)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#, #wekêbolos# et #welenê#. 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 + #rhêtôr#, #brêtôr# 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[¨æ];" + + [Transcriber's Note: Letter æ 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 mînd, 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#; +#Seouêros, Sebêros#. 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 _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 _pône_; _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 _finît_ (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_, _[)a]ctito_ or _âctito_: + + [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 #eschô ischô#, + 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 + + +â+ 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). + + +ê+ as second +e+ in Italian _fedele_; or as in fête (not fate); or + as in vein. + + +[)e]+ as in Italian _fetta_; or as in very. + + +î+ 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 Müller. + + +ô+ 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). + + +û+ 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-éh) as in German _näher_; or as +ea+ in pear; or +ay+ in + aye (ever); (not like +â+ 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 +[)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, _bûs_ 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 +_bûs_ 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 _âctus_, _lêctus_, 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, _spês_, but +_dúx_; _lûn[)a]_, but _lún[-a]_; _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: _vént[-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 _fâm[)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. |