Accent of Latin

[Boyar Son]

the Romans, and their language latin...

see each country has their own accent and i wondered what was the romans?

Was it like modern italian? or a mix of spanish and italian?

also, everyone pronounces the C like an S when pronounSing "lucius". shouldnt it be pronounced in latin "lukius"? or Kaius or Kaeser?

[Zaknafien]

yes, "C" is always as in 'come, call', never as in "city or civil", except the combination 'ch' is pronounced as an emphesized c: "Cicero" (Kikero), "cena" (Keyna), pulcher (pulKer)

[blitzkrieg80]

wow, I'm glad that question was asked, I knew I was ignorant about Latin but didn't think I was butchering names like Cicero, that's unforgiveable, similar to pernouncing Celts like the Boston basketball team ~;)

[bovi]

yes, "C" is always as in 'come, call', never as in "city or civil", except the combination 'ch' is pronounced as an emphesized c: "Cicero" (Kikero), "cena" (Keyna), pulcher (pulKer)

I'm confused. You translate all of those with K, even though pulcher has ch in it? What does "emphasized c" mean exactly?

[abou]

In Latin, C is always a hard C. With an H after it the C becomes aspirated, if that makes any sense. CH is going to sound as it does in loch - as in the Loch Ness monster.

I think that was what Zak meant.

[bovi]

Ah, thanks :beam:.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

While we're at it it's worth pointing out that "V" is more or less "W" in Latin, although it fulfils the role of "U" so Caesar actually said "Weni, Widi, Wici."

For those of you in Germanic countries when I say "W" I mean as in the English "Window" soft, not hard.

[bovi]

Would that then be weni, widi, wiki? I've always thought it was veni, vidi, vitchi...

[Trax]

In Latin, C is always a hard C.
Would it not be more correct to say: In classical Latin C is always a hard C?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well, you can hardly call Medieval Latin & Renaissance Latin proper Latin. The amounts of simply erronous Latin that had crept in prompted scholars such as Erasmus to adopt a "back to basics" approach: hence many a student had to brush up his Latin first before taking courses from Erasmus & co. ~;)

Also, I naturally supposed this thread was about the "Accent of Latin" within the EB timeframe? So, I suppose that's pretty much equal to the "Accent of Classical Latin".

[I Am Herenow]

The "vitchi" thing is because of Italian. Because, for example, "ci sono" - "there are" - would be pronounced "chi sono" if you were to write it so that an Englishman might understand how to pronounce it. On the other hand, in Italian a "c" followed by an "h" indicates the same noise that the letter "k" indicates in English - the same sort of "emphasised 'k'" idea, really.

Therefore "Ci sono cinque chiavi sulla tavola" - "There are five keys on the table" - would be pronounced "Chee sono chinkwey kiavee sulla tavola".

[Andronikos]

I know that before "a", "o" and "u" is "c" pronounced like "k" (e.g Caligula, Cornelius, Marcus) and before "e" and "i" it is pronounced like "normal c" - like "z" in german (like Zahn, Zug...) e.g Cicero
Zak, you say that Cicero is pronounced Kikero?
(in my country we have alphabet with 46 letters and each is pronounced in different way)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know that before "a", "o" and "u" is "c" pronounced like "k" (e.g Caligula, Cornelius, Marcus) and before "e" and "i" it is pronounced like "normal c" - like "z" in german (like Zahn, Zug...) e.g Cicero
Zak, you say that Cicero is pronounced Kikero?
(in my country we have alphabet with 46 letters and each is pronounced in different way)

In Latin C is always K, not S or Z.


Would that then be weni, widi, wiki? I've always thought it was veni, vidi, vitchi...

That is correct, always hard C "Ch" and "Sh" don't exist in Latin.

Trax: Actually we are talking about Golden Latin, which is, more or less, the Latin of our timeframe. Silver Latin is something else again. "Classical" covers a period of some 800 years or so and is far too broad a term.

[mcantu]

So is Cicero pronounced "kikero"?

[Foot]

yes, in classical latin. Otherwise it is pronounced sis-ero.

Foot

[Andronikos]

So is Cicero pronounced "kikero"?
And Caesar "Kesar"?

[Moros]

Yup, that's how it would be said.
Tough a small note, a well educated patrician would say Kaesar.
Also Not Keesar. But Kisar, like in "lie".

ae=i
C=k (hard)
v= w or "ou" like in "you".

Edit:
"i" can be like the "y" from "you" or like "ui" in "quick" or "e" like in "me".
example:
ivppiter: youppiter
dies: de-es
inter: inter. (the i is like in quick.)

[I Am Herenow]

Incidentally, what was the language of the Romans of c.600 BC like (so Horatius et al)? Was it still "Golden Latin" or something different?

[Andronikos]

Damn it! At school we were said that we learn classic roman latin. It is a shock for me: kisar, kikero... no /ce:zar/ or /cicero/ :dizzy2:
I have another questions about languages: do you use authentic ancient celtic, persian, germanic... languages?
I am also interested in the name of slavic light spearmen - Voinu - is in some protoslavic language or have you made it of present slavic languages as I am a Slav and in my language the word "vojna" /voina/ means "war"
/.../ means pronounciation

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

I hope you Anglosaxons know now that you are totally alone in the world with your funny "approach" to pronouncing words...~;)

My Latin-teacher told us the K-thing, but said we should make an exception for Caesar and Cicero, because they are just known as Tsaezar and Tseetserow, you know...:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Moros]

Incidentally, what was the language of the Romans of c.600 BC like (so Horatius et al)? Was it still "Golden Latin" or something different?
If I'm not mistaken Horatius was from the first century BC (Homerus was from that time, did you mix the two up?). And that would indeed be the times of the golden latin. (Caesar and Cicero themselves were from the same century.)
600 BC? That would be verry early Archaïc latin I guess. Back then Rome wasn't more than a small town.

[Moros]

Damn it! At school we were said that we learn classic roman latin. It is a shock for me: kisar, kikero... no /ce:zar/ or /cicero/ :dizzy2:
I have another questions about languages: do you use authentic ancient celtic, persian, germanic... languages?
I am also interested in the name of slavic light spearmen - Voinu - is in some protoslavic language or have you made it of present slavic languages as I am a Slav and in my language the word "vojna" /voina/ means "war"
/.../ means pronounciation
I'm no linguist myself, (I have had latin class that's all) so take this for what it's worth. Most of the languages exept Latin and perhaps greek, aren't really authentic languages. But rather reconstructed languages, many words might date from that area and have been found on stones or whatever, but most languages didn't exactly left us with dictionnaries and grammarbooks.
I'll levae the rest to our historians and linguists, they can tell you much more about this.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Though there are actually Greek dictionaries left. I came across Volume 19 the other day, which is called "Linguarum seu dictionum exoletarum Hippocratis explicatio", written by some Claudius Galenus. (As it happens only Volume 19 is part of the digital collection of texts in which I found the dictionary.) As the title of the book explains, this dictionary aims at explaining the terminology used by Hippokrates & co.

[Boyar Son]

So.. accent anyone?


spanish, italian-spanish...other...

[abou]

Stress accent (with perhaps a little change in pitch) is placed on the penultimate unless that vowel is short. If that is the case, the accent is placed on the ante penultimate.

So in hastatus the stress is placed on the second A. In Triarius it is placed on the A as well because the second I is short. In Princeps it is the I, but in the plural form Principes it changes to the second I.

[Boyar Son]

stress? change of pitch how?

[abou]

Dude, just use Google:

http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Latin/Grammar/Latin-Pronunciation-Syllable-Accent.html

[Boyar Son]

Whats this?!?!

EB team member redirects me to google instead of answering?!?!

[abou]

I'm not typing out the full extent of the pronunciation section of Gildersleeve's Latin Grammar just so you can sit in your room mispronouncing things to yourself.

[Boyar Son]

at least it'd be a useful thing to do...

lol abou

[Shigawire]

Diphtongs, morphed in time with process of palatalization:

OE = classical: oy! - medieval: Eh
AE = classical: aye! - medieval: Eh



Consonants that have morphed due to process of palatalization:

C
classical: Kook - medieval & italian: Chess - English: ambiguously S or K

G - created by Spurius Carvilius Ruga around 300 BC, passed into law by Censor Appius Claudius Caecus in 312 BC.
classical: Golf - medieval & latin: Giuseppe/Juice

etc..


C. IVLIVS CAESAR = Gayoos Iulius Kaisar
Cicero = Kikero
etc

already mentioned by others..

[I Am Herenow]

Ooh, the expert is here! :beam:

Shigawire, why does "C." mean "Gaius"? Something I'd never understood from my Latin classes - even the teacher didn't know.

Also, what language did the Romans of c.600 BC speak? BTW by "Horatius", I meant the bloke who held that bridge. Er...the one in that poem? Well, never mind - anyway, what was the really old Latin like? Or did they speak Greek or something?

[christof139]

Something that some may know and others not, and it is important.

During Ancient times in the Med. when the Greek and Latin cultures were meeting and intermixing (along with the Carthaginians/Phoenicians), a trade language developed that was part latin and part Greek as I understand it. Polybius wrote in this trade language I do believe, at least that is what I have read about it.

Similar to Arabic becoming the trade language in the eastern Med. as it is still today in many eastern Med. countries.

I don't read either, although I fiddled a bit with the Penguin Classics books where the original text is written on the page before the modern translated text. :book:

Aren't languages fun?? :wall: :dizzy2:

Chris

[Shigawire]

Shigawire, why does "C." mean "Gaius"? Something I'd never understood from my Latin classes - even the teacher didn't know.

The reason for this is that the Romans had a very old practice of shortening the prenomen to 1 or 2 letters. As mentioned before, the letter C branched out into C and G in the 3rd century BC, because the letter C had started to have 2 very different sounds. Spurius simply added a little line to the C to make up the G.
However, despite the letter G having been created, this practice of shortening the prenomen maintained its archaic nature. Therefore, you could in 50 BC easily write both forms such as this:
CN. - GNAEVS
C. - GAIVS

So in essence, I suppose it was a tradition they maintained for conservative reasons.


Also, what language did the Romans of c.600 BC speak? BTW by "Horatius", I meant the bloke who held that bridge. Er...the one in that poem? Well, never mind - anyway, what was the really old Latin like? Or did they speak Greek or something?

I don't really know about this, but a quick glance at Wikipedia render the following:


In his book Language for Everybody (1957), linguist Mario Pei showed the development of the language from what he said was the oldest sample of the language, the "Praenestine Fibula," from the 6th century BC. The inscription translates into English as "Manios made me for Numerius."

Manios med fhefhaked Numasioi (6th century BC)

In classical Latin it would be rendered:

Manius me fecit Numerio (EB timeframe)

It would have appeared thus in Vulgar Latin of Italy in the 7th century A.D.

Maniu me fece per Numeriu (7th century AD)

In modern Romance languages it would be:

Manio mi fece per Numerio (modern Italian)

Manio me hizo para Numerio (modern Spanish)

Manios me fit pour Numère (modern French)

I'm sorry that this is very superficial, but that's all I can tell you about this. I don't really know much about this era of 6th century Italy. I read in a recent popular history magazine that the Etruscans might have been related to Turks (or perhaps they meant people from Minor Asia?)

[Tristuskhan]

I read in a recent popular history magazine that the Etruscans might have been related to Turks (or perhaps they meant people from Minor Asia?)
They probably meant people from minor asia. As far as we know the Turks emerged from the Siberian Taiga at the time the Etruscans disapeared.

[Shigawire]

They probably meant people from minor asia. As far as we know the Turks emerged from the Siberian Taiga at the time the Etruscans disapeared.

Yes, they came from the plains beyond India. I hope they just meant Minor Asia. I never read it, I just looked superficially at the article at my brother's place when I visited Oslo. But it did use the word "Turks" ("Tyrkere") which is pretty ethnicity-specific.

[Kahju]

More precisely, it was probably meant that Etruscans might have spoken an Anatolian language (Anatolian languages include Hittite and Lydian) or been descendants of Anatolian speakers. It's a fairly common theory, but nevertheless not generally accepted.

[keravnos]

What the article was saying is that there is direct dna evidence linking the people of ancient Lydia, in present day Turkey, with people of Tyrrene, or Etrouria in present day Italy.

The genetic relation of ancient Lydians to ancient Turks is as great as that of Turks with Hittites. None.

But as Turks own the place, I suppose it makes some sense. It still is wrong, though.

[Shigawire]

Well, it was a POPULAR history mag, not a serious one. So I wouldn't be surprised.

[Ferromancer]

Shouldn't that be "Magnon me fit pour Numère (modern French)"?

[I Am Herenow]

Hang on, what is "me fit"? Is it the passé simple? Wouldn't French people just use "m'a fait"?

[Swordmaster]

yes, in classical latin. Otherwise it is pronounced sis-ero.

Foot

I guess I'm the ignoramus here. I've never heard anyone say Sisero instead of Kikero.

:oops:

[Shigawire]

It was a quote from a Wikipedia article (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/latin). Don't shoot the messenger (me) if the French was wrong. Go into the article and edit it or something. Even so, it is totally mal apropos to the topic, so return to the topic you pedantic nitpickers. :smash:

Swordmaster: Cicero is pronounced Sisero in English.

[Trax]

Cicero is pronounced Sisero in English.

And Tsitsero in my part of the world :sweatdrop:

[Anastasios Helios]

There could be a link between modern Turks and the Etruscans. As an ethnic group, the Turks originated in Siberia/Mongolia, but after invading Anatolia they mixed with the native Armenians, Greeks, descendants of other ethnic groups such as Thrakioi, Lydians, Galatikoi, etc. dwelt. Modern dwellers of the Turkish republic speak Turkish and follow Islamic religion, but by blood, they are largely a mix of these peoples. It makes sense for the "Turks" of the location of ancient Lydia to maybe share a genetic relationship with the Etruscans.

[I Am Herenow]

It was a quote from a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/latin). Don't shoot the messenger (me) if the French was wrong. Go into the article and edit it or something. Even so, it is totally mal apropos to the topic, so return to the topic you pedantic nitpickers.

Oh, I wasn't having a go at you - thanks for the answer BTW - I was just asking.

[Boyar Son]

Well now we know how they spoke, but no idea as to what their accent was?

Ex. US accent, English accent, Australian accent

is this impossible to know?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

abou covered it on page one.


Stress accent (with perhaps a little change in pitch) is placed on the penultimate unless that vowel is short. If that is the case, the accent is placed on the ante penultimate.

So in hastatus the stress is placed on the second A. In Triarius it is placed on the A as well because the second I is short. In Princeps it is the I, but in the plural form Principes it changes to the second I.

[Boyar Son]

Ok I'll just google penultimate...and ante penultimate....

[KARTLOS]

What the article was saying is that there is direct dna evidence linking the people of ancient Lydia, in present day Turkey, with people of Tyrrene, or Etrouria in present day Italy.

The genetic relation of ancient Lydians to ancient Turks is as great as that of Turks with Hittites. None.

But as Turks own the place, I suppose it makes some sense. It still is wrong, though.

you seem to have a very extreme idea of population movement. in the modern popualtion of turkey there is undoubtedly a strong genetic legacyof the pre-turkic invasion populations, such as the hittites, galatians lydians etc.

thus the etrsucan research is not really that big a deal, it certainly doesnt suggest that they were "turkic".

[Trax]

There is a thread in Monastery about that.

click (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=87353)

[Swordmaster]

Well now we know how they spoke, but no idea as to what their accent was?

Ex. US accent, English accent, Australian accent

They certainly didn't speak with a British accent as in most movies. :smash:

[christof139]

There could be a link between modern Turks and the Etruscans. As an ethnic group, the Turks originated in Siberia/Mongolia, but after invading Anatolia they mixed with the native Armenians, Greeks, descendants of other ethnic groups such as Thrakioi, Lydians, Galatikoi, etc. dwelt. Modern dwellers of the Turkish republic speak Turkish and follow Islamic religion, but by blood, they are largely a mix of these peoples. It makes sense for the "Turks" of the location of ancient Lydia to maybe share a genetic relationship with the Etruscans.

That's what I read too, and Turkish is similar to Estonian (and/or Latvian) and Finnish (and/or Laplander), Uighur or Finno-Uighur type language I believe, can't remember exact term off-hand. Turks are an Altaic people as are the Mongols, Tatars or Tartars, etc.

Chris

[Kahju]

That's what I read too, and Turkish is similar to Estonian (and/or Latvian) and Finnish (and/or Laplander), Uighur or Finno-Uighur type language I believe, can't remember exact term off-hand.




Yeah, and Nahuatl is descended of Phoenician, Hungarian is an Etruscan-Sumerian pidgin, Ancient Egyptian is Semitic and Lydians were Turkish!

[Tellos Athenaios]

Do I sense sarcasm here?

Anyways, lot's of languages in Europ & Central Asia are somehow connected - not surprisingly given the Indo-European stock those peoples apparently all come from.

[Moros]

Do I sense sarcasm here?
Nah, try out the Lusotanni faction thread. I think he might be there ~;)
(I know this is a bad one. I just couldn't resist.)

[Boyar Son]

They certainly didn't speak with a British accent as in most movies. :smash:

what do you mean?

[CrownOfSwords]

Yeah I don't know if you could figure much about the actual accents the Romans carried and im sure it even varied from place to place. Yet good thing you can know is how the c's were pronounced as k's and anywhere there is "ae" its pronounced as "aye", i havent taken latin for a few years so thats all i can think of right now but even knowing that will make a difference when you attempt to pronounce latin words out of Eb :dizzy2:

[christof139]

Yeah, and Nahuatl is descended of Phoenician, Hungarian is an Etruscan-Sumerian pidgin, Ancient Egyptian is Semitic and Lydians were Turkish!

I don't think any Turkish/Altaic peoples had reached Anatolia yet when the Lydians were a Kingdom, could be though. Some say the Estruscans are Lydians and that the Lydians are actually Greeks or related, so the Lydians could be very southern Slavs. Have to see if the Lydians made pierogis, and if they did then perhaps the riddle is solved. :laugh4: :dizzy2:

Chris

[Anastasios Helios]

Anyways, lot's of languages in Europ & Central Asia are somehow connected - not surprisingly given the Indo-European stock those peoples apparently all come from.

That cannot be proven. Linguists believe this only because of the kinship between the languages of the region. Europeans love to foster the romantic theory that their ancestors where once mighty horse warriors who spread civilization to India, China, Middle East, etc.

In most cases, languages aren't spread by huge migrations of peoples..(English language comes from a tiny group of Anglos who ruled over Romano-Keltic Britian....Latin America speaks Spanish due to a tiny invasion force of the Amerindian majority....Turkey speaks Turkish but the population is descended from a mixture of Greeks, Turks, Armenians, Hittites, Galatians, etc).In fact, it is likely that only small populations of "Indo-Europeans" settled in Europe and Central Asia where the lands were probably already very populated and eventually they came to influence the already-spoken languages there. That would also explain the profound differences between Keltic, Hindi, Latin, Persian, Greek, etc.

Don't mean to shoot you down mate, just giving my own theory.

[christof139]

However, all Indo-European languages have similar words amongst them and some of those words can be traced back to ancient Sanskrit, Linear B, etc., thus proving a common language super-group.

Whether they rode horses or walked on their own, and they did both, wouldn't mean too much for anyone's psyche, but they sure as heck weren't the bringers of civilization to all corners of the earth as you point out. They, the Indo-Europeans ran into already existing civilizations and cultures in many places they migrated to as you point out, and just because Indo-European writing is the oldest we have found so far doesn't mean it is the oldest and it doesn't mean that pre-exisisting cultures wern't civilized, intellegent, and organized before Indo-Europeans bumped into them.

I know what you mean.

Chris

[Foot]

That cannot be proven. Linguists believe this only because of the kinship between the languages of the region. Europeans love to foster the romantic theory that their ancestors where once mighty horse warriors who spread civilization to India, China, Middle East, etc.

In most cases, languages aren't spread by huge migrations of peoples..(English language comes from a tiny group of Anglos who ruled over Romano-Keltic Britian....Latin America speaks Spanish due to a tiny invasion force of the Amerindian majority....Turkey speaks Turkish but the population is descended from a mixture of Greeks, Turks, Armenians, Hittites, Galatians, etc).In fact, it is likely that only small populations of "Indo-Europeans" settled in Europe and Central Asia where the lands were probably already very populated and eventually they came to influence the already-spoken languages there. That would also explain the profound differences between Keltic, Hindi, Latin, Persian, Greek, etc.

Don't mean to shoot you down mate, just giving my own theory.

Thats certainly not true, there are direct links between european languages and indo-aryan languages, thats quite a large geographical difference. No one ever said that the indo-europeans migrated in large enough numbers to populate europe or asia; they certainly supplanted ruling elites of regions in many places (though not necessarily all). We know that Anatolia and Mesopotamia was already full to the brim of civilisation before the earliest indo-european migrations began (the hittite group).

No one said that they brought civilisation to any region, you seem to be putting words into peoples mouths. There almost certainly was a proto-indo-european language, culture and people. In fact we can reconstruct their mythology and their culture (including what technology they knew) through linguistics and archaelogical evidence.

Foot

[Anastasios Helios]

As far as I'm aware, there are many different versions of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language. It is very interesting to study and compare to modern day languages. Though, I find it difficult to believe in a language that was reconstructed by linguists over the past two centures to help support a theory that remains unproven. Linguistics can only tell us so much. :smash:

What archaeological evidence are you referring to? :book:

[Foot]

The movements of people, the various archaelogical cultures, etc.

I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that the reconstructed PIE language would allow a linguist now to speak to a proto-indo-european back then. But the evidence is overwhelming and whilst unproven and would hardly agree that an alternative is more likely. It is not my field, but from what I've read on the subject the matter seems fairly decisive that several indo-european migrations from an area of both grassland and forests, probably near a largish body of water came into europe around the pontic coast and through central europe over several hundreds of years. People related to these indo-europeans must have also travelled eastward forming the indo-europeans and likely travelling the eastward shore of the caspian into iran and from there into india. The evidence to my mind, both linguistically and the archaelogical finds of cultures that fit the basic specifications of an indo-european culture speaks volumes.

Not that I'm well read on the subject.

Foot

[Anastasios Helios]

Agreed...I can believe that

I'm no expert either. :2thumbsup:

[Swordmaster]

what do you mean?

No, what do you mean:


Well now we know how they spoke, but no idea as to what their accent was?

Ex. US accent, English accent, Australian accent

?

[christof139]

watch Italian made movies about Rome and the actors will surprisingly have Italian accents. A brilliant deduction. I don't like movies where Romans and Greeks are speaking with various English or American or German etc. accents, and I certainly didn't like the Orcs speaking with Cockney or whatever English dialect accent in the LotRings, it was somewhat phony or phoney.

Chris

[Anastasios Helios]

Every movie I have ever seen about Greeks, Romans, etc involves the actors having British accents. I've just now taken the time to fully think about that...and it's so stupid. I think that for ancient Romans, an Italian accent may be the way to go.

[Caratacos]

Every movie I have ever seen about Greeks, Romans, etc involves the actors having British accents. I've just now taken the time to fully think about that...and it's so stupid. I think that for ancient Romans, an Italian accent may be the way to go.

Yes and who were these movies' audience? English speakers. And who are the Romans in the movies? The ruling class (aristocrats). And who are the ruling class (aristocrats) in the English speaking world (of old anyway)? The British upper class... and how did they speak again? Oh like the Romans/Greeks in those movies. This is called stereotyping. Having your audience identify the stereotype so that the characters make sense to them is what they moviemakers try to do. They don't think it's stupid.

[Beetlecat]

Well now we know how they spoke, but no idea as to what their accent was?

Ex. US accent, English accent, Australian accent

is this impossible to know?


Well, I'm sure somebody *may* come up with an answer, but when you look at a single city like London that can have numerous discernable accents... it makes the whole question moot in a way.

Is there a way we could really discern the exact vocal tone of the vowels, is that really what you're asking?

I guess we need to find the 'newscaster voice' of the time to figure out what ancient Romans sounded like.... :)

[Hooahguy]

yes, "C" is always as in 'come, call', never as in "city or civil", except the combination 'ch' is pronounced as an emphesized c: "Cicero" (Kikero), "cena" (Keyna), pulcher (pulKer)

youre kidding me, right? Cicero is pronounced "kikero" and not "sisero"? wow- i had no idea! ive been mispronouncing his name all this time! who knows wat else ive been butchering?! i'd better look up on it. :book:

[christof139]

I've seen a lot of movies about Romans etc. with Italian and Spanish and French actors and actresses in those movies. Many are older 1950's and 1960's movies, but there are much mor recent ones. Problem is many are in Romance languages and some are subtitled in English and some may be dubbed with English, so ...

Chris

[Ferromancer]

At 272 BC, Latin was pronounced kikero, veni, vidi, vici (weeny, weedy, weaky). However, by around 100 AD, vowel and consonant shifts were taking place that would reflect in the Romance languages that emerged later. If you look at grammarian books from Caesar's time, there were already attempts to conserve and stabilize the language, which was probably a herculean task given the variation that was likely to happen over such a large area. Changes include: v becoming a soft "fricative" vowel, sort of like the v in lover, eventually sounding like b in spanish, and like modern day v in Italian and French. c+e has an even larger variation. Sardinian/Sicilian: keeps the [k] sound, Italian: ch, Old French: ts, Modern French/English: s, Spanish: th. This development is called "palatalization".

See:
Vulgar Latin
History of French
History of Spanish

You could say that Classical Latin was the language of the elites and academies, while Vulgar Latin was the language of slaves, soldiers, and traders.

[Shigawire]

However, the milestones in palatalization happened differently depending on which letter. The dipthongs AE/OE (AY/OY) contracted to É/É earlier than the C palatalized. The C in all likelihood only palatalized around 500-600 AD, possibly as a consequence of the Barbarian immigrations (400s AD).

[Ferromancer]

However, the milestones in palatalization happened differently depending on which letter. The dipthongs AE/OE (AY/OY) contracted to É/É earlier than the C palatalized. The C in all likelihood only palatalized around 500-600 AD, possibly as a consequence of the Barbarian immigrations (400s AD).

I refer you to this paragraph from the wikipedia article:
"Palatalization of Latin /k/, /t/, and often /g/ was almost universal in vulgar Latin; the only Romance languages it did not affect were Dalmatian and some varieties of Sardinian. Thus Latin caelum ('sky', 'heaven'), pronounced /kaelu(m)/ beginning with /k/, became Italian cielo, /tʃɛlo/, French ciel, /sjɛl/, Catalan cel, /sɛl/, Spanish cielo, /θjelo/ or /sjelo/ (depending on dialect) and Portuguese céu, /'sɛu/, beginning with sibilant consonants. The former semivowels written in Latin as V as in vinum, pronounced /w/, and I as in iocunda, pronounced /j/, came to be pronounced /β̞/ and /dʒ/, respectively. Between vowels, /b/ and /w/ often merged into an intermediate sound /β̞/."

Keep in mind that this process took centuries to pan out. For instance, in Old French (spoken in the high middle ages) c-i was pronounced /ts/, so the palatization was about 2/3 of the way there. Check this post out on how the pronuncian progressed:

http://www.webamused.com/bloglatin/archives/002050.html

[Shigawire]

I know it took ages for changes to come to effect. I'm saying that it didn't all happen in the 1st century AD. Different letters changed at different times and paces. You need to dig deeper than wikipedia. As mentioned in the article, there are Sardinian dialects today still unaffected by the process of palatalization.

You are absolutely right that Classical Latin was the language of the Elites, and Vulgar the language of 95% of the people. But at this time, history belonged to the Elite. There was no labor movements complaining about work ethics. This was a time owned by the Elite. So we unfortunately have to revert to Classical. Plus Vulgar Latin is a form of Latin that is most difficult to study and has therefore been untouched by the voicemod. Vulgar and Classical did not differ that much in classical times, but the difference increased dramatically during the 3rd century AD with new vocabulary introduced. It is believed that Spanish is a product of early vulgar latin having fomented in Hispania, as a lot of Roman soldiers settled in lands there. Then acquiring celticiberian features. This Vulgar Latin + local influence is thought of as the genesis to most other Romance languages as well.

[Boyar Son]

No, what do you mean:



?


Like this: but no idea as to what their accent was?

Trust me repeat that to yourself




WAIT!!!

everyone new pronounciation question:

Atia, pronounced ASHYA or aTia (no sh sound)

do romans say SH (ex. ATIA) or not?

[Ritterlichvon86]

The Romans in your movies might say ashia. However, it would be atía.

To you english speaker, latin might have sounded close to italian. It is the closest to latin by its sound among the modern romanic languages.

[abou]

Emphasis would be on the first A. A-ti-a.

[Boyar Son]

Emphasis would be on the first A. A-ti-a.

like galAtia? pronounciation- galaCHya

correct?

when they say the word it would be like: gal-Atia

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Romans in your movies might say ashia. However, it would be atía.

To you english speaker, latin might have sounded close to italian. It is the closest to latin by its sound among the modern romanic languages.

I have to say that if anything Latin sounds more like Middle English than anything else to me, we have pretty much all the sounds from Classical and Vulgar Latin in English today, such as the soft W which we probably use more than anyone else.

[blitzkrieg80]

Middle English certainly does seem similar to Latin, as if the Germanic of Old English became Latinized and spelt out all funny (the tons of borrowed Latin and French notwithstanding), one has to love the language for that... eh waitaminute, nobody should love Middle English ~;)

[Anastasios Helios]

You are right...If it wasn't for William the Conqueror's invasion, the English language today may have sounded more like German is spoken today. French and Latin "softened" English up a bit.