Some ancient languages we use are simply the best replacement available. For example, Ossetic is the best possible replacement for the Sauromatae.Quote:
Originally Posted by tk-421
But some that we use have a wider academic history. I refer to Greek and Latin of course.
We know fairly accurately how Latin was pronounced thanks to a number of things:
1.Multiple ancient writings of rhetorians/grammarians (teachers who trained pupils in the art of speaking) describe where the tongue is located in the mouth for various sounds. One such grammarian is Marcus Fabius Quintilianus. Another is Spurius Carvilius Ruga (creator of the letter G). etc..
Aside from these grammarians there are also a myriad of other unrelated texts where tiny details of speech is revealed.
2.The science of linguistics tries to determine the pattern of phonemes, and determine how a language can change, where it can change, and how quickly it can change.
3.Moreover there has been a consequential and generational deliberation of the latin language's mutation over time. Largely thanks to dark-age & medieval monks/scholars who have written on the subject.
So in short, historic evidence as well as linguistic science determines our understanding of these ancient languages. Some languages are more certain than others. On one side of the spectrum is the pre-celtic Iberian language, which is the most mystical of all, of which we know nothing about. In the middle of the spectrum, we have the Ossetic for Sauromatae simply because we have no better alternative. And also the Celtic reconstructions by Ranika, which is based on a thorough understanding of the language. At the end of the spectrum we have the more certain languages, Latin and Greek (and Punic to some extent).
In any case, whatever percentile our inaccuracies may be, nothing is worse than the english voices. Totally ruins the atmosphere for me. :san_wink: