Many Velites, one ... ?

[Kraxis]

I don't mind people using whatever localized versions of certain things, especially institutions, those things are often global and we can't confine it to one area. Even if we can then it becomes even more important to make certain everybody get the point of it, so a localized version is very important. For instance 'Senatus' for a japanese farmer is not something he will understand. That Japan has chosen a line that is more akin to the british way of naming it (parliament) is of little consequence here.

I just think that names are indeed sacred, and we owe it to to the people that we at least try to understand their names or their country's name. We can then choose to use those names or our own.
For instance here in Denmark Polybius is called Polyb, something I hate to say but I'm pretty much forced to do it at the uni if I make a reference to him. But at least I know his name was Polybios (-us is latin).

Anyway I found a little discrepancy regarding the rules of when a C is a K or an S. What I have heard is that it is an S when the next wovel is an E and I for instance (example Cicero) and it is a K when the next wovel is an O or A (example Agricola and Caius). But then I susprised myself by saying Prin-kee-pes (Principes), it should have been Prin-see-pes as per the rules.

[Simetrical]

velite" of you are anglicising the word, in which case the plural should be pronounced "vee-lites".

Usually not. Words tend to become more Anglicized over time, but according to rules for words not fully Anglicized, velites should be pronounced something like "VEHL-uh-teez." See, for instance, testes, pronounced "TEST-eez"—I can't think of any other examples at the moment, but the Latin and Greek plural ending -es is typically prononuced "eez" until the word in question is fully Anglicized, at which point it morphs to the normal English plural suffix -(e)s.

-Simetrical

[Shadar]

Yep. The singular forum of the word Vēles (meaning light armed soldier/skirmisher) is Vēlitēs.

Vēlitēs is pronounced roughly We-li-tays (soft w, as in "where", and a short i, as in "pin") [Nb. i'm not that great with this sounding-writing out thing. so its a bit inaccurate]


The Anglicised form of Latin mainly came about mainly from the monasteries of the Dark and Middle Ages which kept a lot of the Latin books. As monks copied out the books (since parchment obviously didn't last forever), some monks obviously thought it prudent to distinguish between some parts of the latin alphabet. One example would be "i", as it was used both as a consonant (where it was pronounced as a soft "y", e.g. in Yule) and as a vowel (both as a short vowel in "pin" and a long vowel as in "keen"), The consonant "i" later became "j" (you can see the similarities can't you?). Thus, words like Iulius and Iuvenalis became eventually Julius and Juvenal.

[Barbarossa82]

I agree with your description of how words become anglicised, Simetrical. But surely the degree to which one chooses to anglicise is a matter of personal choice. I would dispute that there are any "rules for words not fully Anglicised" - languages do not belong to scholars but to those who speak them.
I shouldn't have made the mistake in my first post of prescribing how to pronounce the Anglicised version of "velites" - treat it as my own attitude to transforming the word rather than an attempt to lay down a rule.

When I was taught Latin, we were instructed that all letter Cs were to be pronounced in the hard, K form. The Romans did technically have a letter K, but used it exceptionally rarely. However the modern ecclesiastical pronunciation of Latin tends to use most Cs in the soft, S-like form.
There are lots of unanswered questions about the way Latin was spoken, with little evidence to go on. Was the letter V always pronounced softly, like U or W, or could it be a hard V as well? If it could only make the soft sound, then one might expect it to elide like a vowel; but implementing this leaves us with some Latin poetry with its scansion knocked out of kilter by one syllable. On the other hand, if they had a letter making two different sounds, one might think it would have been a prime candidate for the Emperor Claudius to dream up a new letter for (he tried to introduce several new letters to convey sounds not fully catered for in the Latin alphabet). So there is evidence for both propositions.
Until someone invents a time machine we are never going to know everything for sure, which I think is part of the charm of history!

[Piko]

i have a textbook right here

c=k
-on a letter=long pronounciation
õ for instance is a short o
v=w
u=oe
ui=oeie
for example victorius means victory,you pronounce it wiek-torie-oes
Oh,by the way im only 13 and live in belgium so don't be to hard on the english.

[Kraxis]

Ok, I didn't mean to imply the C had an S sound in ancient latin, but rather the medieval rule was like that, and that is the reason why so many languages have those soft Cs.
So my point was really that while we have adopted the medieval latin we have apparently not forgotten the proper latin entirely, as the case with 'Principes' indicate.

[Simetrical]

I agree with your description of how words become anglicised, Simetrical. But surely the degree to which one chooses to anglicise is a matter of personal choice. I would dispute that there are any "rules for words not fully Anglicised" - languages do not belong to scholars but to those who speak them.

The rules I referred to were like those of physics, not law; they were descriptivist rather than prescriptivist. In other words, I was describing how Latin words tend to become Anglicized. And the degree of Anglicization is only partially a matter of personal choice, unless you want to sound either completely ignorant (try pronouncing hyperbole as you would a normal English word) or extremely pretentious (try pronouncing hyperbole as the Romans actually pronounced it).

-Simetrical

[hrvojej]

Hyperbole would actually require the Greeks to do the pronounciation, but seeing that I'm unsure as to how to pronounce it in English myself anyway...

[Barbarossa82]

according to rules for words not fully Anglicized, velites should be pronounced something like "VEHL-uh-teez."

Sounded pretty prescriptive to me. If what you meant was "is usually pronounced something like", then point taken.

[Simetrical]

I was using should in a subjunctive fashion, as a synonym of would. Using the AHD definition, I meant it in sense 2, "Used to express probability or expectation," rather than sense 1, "Used to express obligation or duty." Not "It is incumbent upon us to pronounce velites 'VEHL-uh-teez,'" but "If velites were Anglicized, it would probably be pronounced 'VEHL-uh-teez.'"

-Simetrical